User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ludvikus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

On top of things

Thank you, I can see that you are a Hawk.--Kettenhunde (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kettenhunde (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• And what are you? What was the purpose of your posting at the Protocols of Zion's Talk page? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing!, and the point is very simple, look around, you can't denied that the jews are on control, look how they
push the US against Iran, but they don't follow IAEA regulations, they talk about the nazis and look what they do
to the palestinians, that is power, that is been in control, they are behind every major government around the world.
Excuse me if a touch a nerve, but even if I was living in china I would say it as it is.
--Kettenhunde (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to qualify my comment as anti-Semitic, I apologize but the reality is that I have studied all 
this stuff for over 30 years and if there is not some reality on what we see around, what is reality? 

--Kettenhunde (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Stop immediately!

The above is obviously an expression of a belief in the Protocols of Zion. This is not the place to express this belief. It appears that you're a new user. So I'm warning you that one more outburst of expressing your belief in this pejorative view, and I will demand that you be Banned from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to express your own private beliefs. There's absolutely nothing beneficial to Wikipedia by this posting of yours above. Don't do that anymore, and maybe Wikipedia will overlook this violation of its policy. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You studied things. But did you publish any books in a scholarly journal? 30 years of study means your not a child. So you should understand that this is not a forum for you to express your private beliefs. There are many places for you to do that.

I don't want my User page polluted with this garbage you've just posted on my page. If you want any more clarification - I strongly suggest this garbage be kept on your own Talk page. If you do that, I'll reply. But if you make anymore posting here regarding your Biblical beliefs in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I assure you that I will vigilantly report your misconduct to the Wikipedia Police and they may exile you from Wikipedia forever, with no chance of Parole. Or are you un-aware of how easily you can be expelled from Wikipedia? If you wish to answer - do so on your own talk page - and do not bring this filth to my own talk page again! --Ludvikus (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How do I handle this by WP rules?

From my talk page:

See here: --Ludvikus (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have handled it. The only comment I would make is that I would not have added "Please return to my Talk page and sign your comment." (don't bite newcomers) or replied with "And what are you? What was the purpose of your posting at the Protocols of Zion's Talk page?" because it gave an excuse to the person to reply on your talk page (s)he did. If I was you, I'd delete your request and their reply from this page, because further comments by you will just allow the person to add more of the same. -- PBS (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your position. But I think you do not see mine. I was giving the newcomer the benefit of the doubt - I assumed good faith on his/her part, in spite of the nature of his posting (which you incidentally show no concern with - how come?). I noticed your visit to his Talk page: you only made a comment on his punctuation. I'm quite surprised that you've not taken it upon yourself to educate him on the purpose of Talk pages at WP. It seems you're treating him with "kid gloves." How come? I think he got my message. But I'm surprised that your only concern is with his punctuation.

At the moment I think I'm getting along extremely well with every Wikipedian. But on this matter - I'm very disappointed that you've only found fault with how I've handled this matter. Why aren't you giving me an "A" on my conduct here, on this issue? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said you seem to have handled it. There is little more for me to say. -- PBS (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You could say that I handled it extremely well, and award me a WP:Barnstar for handling a very difficult situation, no? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• And now I'm watching you here: . Nothing like learning by example! I "should do as you do - not as you say," right? This is going be a very important learning experience for me! --Ludvikus (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling corrections

Thanks for correcting my spelling errors on Sarah777's RfC. Thanks to events on WP:AN/I I posted this before I'd had a chance to check it for errors. I've also spent too much time on wikipedia sorting it out so needed to get some work done. I was going to come back and sort it later but you've done it for me. Thanks again. Dpmuk (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I only corrected the errors that were obvious. There are a few (minor ones though) in which I didn't know if you meant "it" or "this" - so I left it alone. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to have a proper look at it later. Dpmuk (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not allowed to post on Sarahs page but thought id respond to your post on there, you mentioned why Wales was so quiet on this matter. Category:Motorways in Wales and Category:Roads in Wales will answer that question. There are only a few motorways in Wales, and some if not all connect with England anyway so theyd have to be at (Great Britain). Also if you look at the road numbers Wales roads are assigned, they are high numbers and not something like the A1 or A2 which would clash with other countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll first share a little English secret about myself with you here (at the risk of being accused of being an Anglophone. My first cousin (my father's brother's son) is a taxi driver in London. So I can double check on your facts with him. I wish the Queen of England the best. Where the sun never set on her ancestor's former colonial holdings, there Democracy to root. And who could believe it - that Queen Victoria's greatest companion after the death of her beloved Consort, was her Prime Minister, Disraeli - not even a Commoner, but a man rooted in the Hebraic persuasion - while the French gave the world, just a little later, the Dreyfus affair. But I even forgive the French, and Germans too, because, after all, to what race do we belong? Why ... the human race. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I last visited my uncle in London in 1956. Is it still as cloudy and foggy as it was then? I'll never forget the heat of the fireplace, and the water bottles placed at my feet bu my uncle's housekeeper as I slept in my English bed not that far from Piccadilly Circus. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

lol uhoh you risk sparking a little war with the Queen of England term. Theres actually has not been a Queen of England for over 300 years despite it often being used, She is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, she is the British Queen, not the English one. :) As for the French and Germans, we are all Europeans here now anyway so love each other and have put aside centuries of European wars and disagreements, thats the official line anyway.

London certainly isnt as smoggy as it once was, although i certainly would not want to live there its far too over populated and traffic congestion is a nightmare. I dont know how people drive in London :\, they all nuts. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Please accept my apology to you, and to her Royal Highness, her Majesty, the Queen. But I thought she also carried her several titles, besides that of her United Kingdom title. I must have overlooked the specific act of Parliament which unified these four individual countries. Where does the Isle of Man fit in the British scheme of things? By the way, I'm also very fond of the late Bertrand Russell (for me it seems yesterday like he died. I'm currently re-reading his Principles of Mathematics. I'm also very interested in the rule - by your sovereign, over (German) Hanover. And also, about your Sovereign's title as King or Queen of France. When exactly was that title assumed. And when (if ever) was it abandoned. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Its an easy mistake to make, it is used all the time by the American media and sometimes even British media use the term. In Scotland some call the Queen the "Queen of Scots", but neither are titles she actually holds, although there are separate crowns and ofcourse she is Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada etc too. Isle of man is not part of the UK but as a crown colony Queen Elizabeth II is head of state there. As for Hanover and France, im not a royal historian and have no idea on those matters sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The German House of Welf who is headed by the Prince of Hanover comes after the House of Windsor in the legitimate line of succession to the British throne; others such as the Wittelsbachs, etc. having been debarred from the line of succession due to their Catholicism. In point of fact, were all the Windsors to die without legitimate heirs (a highly unlikely event!), the descendants of Ernst August, Prince of Hanover (Princess Caroline of Monaco's husband) would succeed to the British throne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Very informative - and interesting. Thanks! --Ludvikus (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Restriction 2

With regards to this request posted to my talk page, regarding this post by user:Bwilkins to the section "PBS" on the talk page of user:PhilKnight. I do not think it appropriate to lift the restriction on any of the articles or their talk pages listed in the Restriction. Note also the restriction includes the articles listed on the disambiguation page Revisionism, which is something I have pointed out to you more than once, but you do not seem to have acknowledged. -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• So you're now effectively Restricting me to seven (7) articles, instead of four (4), adding three (3) more Restrictions like so:

Revisionism may refer to:

1. Historical revisionism, the critical re-examination of presumed historical facts and existing historiography
2. Historical revisionism (negationism), a particular form of historical revisionism concerned with the denial of facts accepted by mainstream historians
3. Holocaust revisionism, any of various claims that standard scholarly descriptions of the Holocaust are substantially erroneous
4. Marxist revisionism, a pejorative term used to describe ideas based on a revision of fundamental Marxist premises
5. Revisionist Zionism, a nationalist faction within the Zionist movement
6. Fictional revisionism, the retelling of a story with substantial alterations in character or environment, to "revise" the view shown in the original work
7. Territorial revisionism, a euphemism for revanchism or irredentism

• What Reason is there for adding three (3) more Restrictions? And you must have known that I believed - until this moment - that I was only restricted to four (4) articles. How come you never bothered to correct me on that? And you give no reason for refusing to lift the Restrictions from the Talk pages? Why?
• I certainly recognize your authority to expand the Restrictions to Seven (7) and will obey you - until such time as the seven (7) Restrictions are lifted. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

---

I have not expanded the restriction (it was in the initial restriction which I posted to this page), and it you had bothered read carefully what I have written, you would have seen that I have repeatedly told you that this is so. Search for these word strings above:

• "I am not willing to argue my decision you because past experience suggests that you do not listen"
• "The restriction is on the pages listed in the bullet points above and their talk pages, and do not create pages which would mean adjusting the disambiguation page Revisionism to include them because they are on a similar topic."
• "The only imposed restriction on you are the specific articles mentioned above and the creation of new articles which would need to be added to Revisionism."
• "I noticed that you have claimed on some other user pages 'Well, I'm only Restricted to four (4) articles' Please read what I wrote carefully 'Revisionism or any page which is listed there.' as currently there are eight articles listed on that page. --PBS (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)"
• "See the sentence above 'I noticed that you have claimed on some other user pages ... Please read what I wrote carefully 'Revisionism or any page which is listed there.' as currently there are eight articles listed on that page. --PBS (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)'"
• "I am not going to comment further on the restrictions I placed on you but if you continue to attempt to influence editors to act as proxies for you, or if you attempt to initiate processes such a mediation on any of the restricted articles (including those listed on the revisionism dab page) I will block you account."

-- PBS (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

---

1. You're an Administrator, and I'm merely an editor (I understand that).
2. Wikipedia requires that I obey your orders.
3. But I know how to count; I know the difference between Four (4) and Seven (7).
4. Your "Restriction [1]" only shows four Restrictions: .
5. Your new "Restriction 2" - which you say is based on the DAB page shows seven Restrictions: revisionism (disambiguation).
6. I'm not trying to "argue" with you - I'm trying to identify your Restrictions.
7. I'm disrupted by your WP:Personal attack on me: that I "do not listen"; I "read" very well - I merely expect Wikipedia to inform me of its Restrictions so I could obey them.
8. My understanding now is that there are (or "were") seven page Restrictions placed on me.
9. You don't have to "argue" with me; but I have a right to know what restrictions are placed against me - so I can reasonably obey them.
10. Your responsibility to me is to make sure I know which articles exactly I cannot touch.
11. Maybe my misunderstand is due to my surprise that you do not accept the recommendation (of another Adm.) that I be only permitted to contribute to Talk pages.
12. I thought WP etiquette means deference to User:Bwilkins, though you have the ultimate authority to do as you please regarding said Restrictions.
13. So I apologize to you for that; I do not intend to offend, confront, or otherwise upset you; but this is about me; so if I'm unable to "hear" you - I apologize for that.
14. I sincerely do not want to Confront you. And I do not understand why I have not been able to win back your good will towards me.
15. I wish to form a good working relationship with you; but I do not know how to do it. Please help me out on that.
16. If I still do not "hear" you, please do not give up on me; please try and explain.

--Ludvikus (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Your point 4 is just not true: "Your 'Restriction [1]' only shows four Restrictions:". The initial restriction included the words "Revisionism or any page which is listed there." something I have pointed out to you several times before today, so why do you persist in stating that it was not in the initial restriction? Why do you state that it is a new restriction (your point 5) when it clearly is not? If you read very well, why did you not read what I wrote initially and then pointed out to you, not once but several times that it included the links on dab page? Then you go on in point 8 "My understanding now is that there are (or 'were') seven page Restrictions placed on me" do you now understand that the restrictions have remained the same and have not changed, all that has changed is that you have finally read what was written?

BWilkins is entitled to his/her opinion, but less than a week has gone by and you still have not dropped your intense interest in this area for a day. All you are doing is reinforcing my opinion that I made the right call. As to your last three points, I suggest that you pick areas of Wikikpedia you have never edited before and contribute positively to those areas, and don't come back to revisionism until May next year (But I have already said that and I am just repeating myself). -- PBS (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• Look here:

Historical revisionism

• Historical revisionism (negationism)
• Revisionist historians (American), Revisionist historians
• Revisionist historians or any page which is listed there.
• Revisionism or any page which is listed there.

---

1. Only now you've made yourself clear to me.
2. You have a duty to make sure I understood your Restrictions. You never bothered to correct me on my miscounting.
3. Even now you do not do the obvious - give me a clear, explicit, correct Count & List - which I couldn't possibly misunderstand.
4. Instead, you've created a mine field, or trap, so I could be Banned from Wikipedia - it's obvious now that you have no "Good Faith" towards me whatsoever.
5. It's clear to me that your only interest is in getting me Banned from Wikipedia.
6. Even if I misunderstood - I have not violated ANY of your Restrictions - however many pages you're restricting me from.
7. Why don't you do the obvious - just Number & List all the pages you wish me to keep away from.
8. In addition, I was quite surprised that BWilkins made that recommendation. I do not remember why he took it upon himself to do so.
9. In addition, your accusation regarding my "interest" in these pages from which you're restriction me from - is unfounded.
10. I haven't edited any of these Seven (7) pages since your Restriction was imposed upon me - isn't that true?
11. You have a duty to Wikipedia to state clearly (1) How I've violated your Restrictions - I haven't, and you know it, so you cannot tell it to Wikipedia.
12. Again, I'm obeying your Restrictions - of keeping away from the Seven (7) pages.
13. If there's any other page your Restriction covers - please let me know.
14. Now you have a duty to specify exactly how I've violated your Restrictions - I haven't so far, right?

• PS: A fundamental principle of Anglo-American jurisprudence is Due process, which requires adequate Notice. So far you haven't shown that I received it - obviously: quite the contrary.

Please assume good faith with me --Ludvikus (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In reply to 1. I made myself as clear as I could, not once but repeatedly (as I quoted above). The reason I placed the restriction on the dab page is also clear: If any related pages are created over the next 8 months they will be listed and linked there, so by including that dab page I automatically keep the list up to date. I think you are still miscounting the pages (it is currently 9 pages including the dab page). To the best of my knowledge, you have only edited one talk page of a restricted article since I restricted articles, a breach I mentioned at the time (17:42, 26 September 2009), I do not know of any other breach of the restriction or have I accused of making any other breaches. -- PBS (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• Thanks for the clarification(s), User:Philip Baird Shearer.

(1) Why don't you please list explicitly the nine (9) pages I'm Restricted from by you?

That way I could not possibly misunderstand you.

I do not wish to violate your Restrictions.

Please do that for me.

I'd prefer if you numbered them.

But bullets would be OK too.

(2) It's clear to me that I haven't violated any of your Restrictions to date.

The one (alleged violation) you mention - you said you let it pass.

You yourself crossed out one item above.

You know I contacted you for clarification.

You let it "pass" because of that.

You should not count it now as a violation of the Restriction.

You cannot say that you "let it pass" and now count it as a violation of your Restrictions.

That's clearly unfair.

Either it was a violation - or you let it pass; you cannot have it both ways.

(3) About the "8 months" period time frame for the Restriction.

That's not in the original Restriction.

You cannot fairly include that now.

Even Wikipedia should not permit that.

It appears like Restrictions are made up as one goes along.

You did not impose an eight month period in your Restriction.

So you should impose it now.

(4) And what's this about not knowing of other violations.

You've been watching me very carefully.

If you "do not know" of violations - you should say there aren't any.

Are you going to hit me with a violation tomorrow? Next week? For what happened before now?

Such qualification does not make me believe in your good faith towards me.

Do you want me to be a good Wikipedian? Or are you just looking to get me Banned?

Please make me able to assume "good faith."

(5) I suspect that you believe I violated the Rule against the WP:POV Fork rule.

I can see how you possibly imagined that.

But I assure you that I did no such thing.

I & User:North Shoreman both edited the {{stub}} revisionist historians (American).

You're a substantial contributor to this family of nine (9) articles.

You are not impartial - you are using your position as a WP Administrator to promote your POV options.

You did not contribute any Talk page remark when I entered the field you are now restricting me from.

It seems to me that there's a mere Content dispute between you and me (and no one else).

Like I said, User:North Shoreman contributed to the content of the "stub" I created.

Obviously, two opposed opinions - involves no consensus.

Suggestions you made in 2008 are irrelevant.

Articles evolve at WP constantly.

You wish to stabilize certain articles is only that - your wish.

It's rather ironic that you - an author of historical revisionism (so I reasonably assume you believe in it) - insist on prohibiting me from Revising the History content of said Restricted 9 articles.

So you have no reason to Restrict me.

• I therefore urge you - for all of the above reasons - to immediately lift the Restrictions you unilaterally imposed on me without any warning whatsoever.
• In the alternative, I ask that you honor the recommendation of your respected colleague, BWilkons, an editor of long standing at Wikipedia, and lift the Restrictions from the nine (9) Talk pages only.

Thanks for you consideration. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

user:El C blocked your account at 22:44, on 13 May 2008 for two years. Therefore the restriction I have placed on you will end at 22:44, on 13 May 2010. -- PBS (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• But it was for contributions focused on "On the Jewish Question" - which I haven't touched since user:PhilKnight un-Blocked me. It was user:PhilKnight who accepted my promise and un-blocked. Your Restriction is so unclear that User:Bwilkins advised User:PhilKnight that I be permitted to participate on the Talk pages of your nine (9) historical revisionism articles. I just want to make this clear here. User:PhilKnight placed NO Restriction on me. It was only you. I still do not understand from your Restriction 1 and Restriction 2 exactly how you get a count of nine (2) articles. And since you want me to keep away till May 13, 2010 I think my request that you enumerate them for me so I don't make a mistake. Please do that for me here below. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • PS1:

    Historical revisionism → Revisionist historians - the latter is the "true" name of the so-called "legitimate Historical revisionists"

    - that was my position during the the two-year Block. And my recollection is that I did not participate in the debate because of the Block involving "On the Jewish Question." You may have forgotten - or overlooked what really happened. Not only was I unable to participate in the debate because of my general block, but I didn't watch Wikipedia while I was blocked. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • PS2: Is it OK with you if I discuss issues regarding historical revisionism with User:A.S. Brown who has just come to my page about the subject (Please look immediately below.)? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Ludvikus

Please accept my apologies in getting back to you. I would very much like to contribute to the American revisionists page, and thank you so much for inviting me. I have a few projects I would like to wrap up first, and then I will get to work on that page. I might disagree with you slightly over whatever Barnes was ever a good revisionist, since there is a lot of evidence that there were some very unsavoury things going with German-history writing about the origins of World War I. I’m not certain if people like Barnes and Fay were aware of it, but they were used by such people as Major Alfred von Wegerer and his Centre for the Study of the Causes of the War-more about that in just a moment. Just as a preliminary suggestion for the page, I would like to see some mention of the contemporary political relevance of these historical debates. History and politics may be separate things, but there are much linked then what many people are willing to admit. To give a current example, look at the very nasty debate that has been going on in Israel since the 1980s between the so-called “orthodox” and “New” historians. Essentially, the debate revolves around the question of did Israel ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in 1948-49 or did the Palestinians flee from the fighting? This debate has very profound contemporary political relevance since if the “New historians” are right and Israel did expel the Arabs, then 1) the Palestinian demand for the “right of return” for all of the Palestinian refugees and their descendents would be powerfully boosted (and this is no small matter-the Camp David summit of 2000 fell apart on this issue) and 2) Israel’s moral legitimacy is being questioned here. This no doubt helps explain the incredible vitriolic way that this debate has been conducted. And nor this debate purely scholarly. Most of the “New historians” are usually doves, and quite a few are “post-Zionists”. By contrast, the most vehement of the “orthodox” historians tend to be hawks, and all of them are strongly Zionist. The precise rights and wrongs of this debate do not concern me here; I’m just using it as an example of how history matters, and how usually the most heated historical debates usually have some sort of contemporary relevance. Even the so-called “storm over the gentry” dispute which torn apart the British historical profession between the 1940s-60s actually quite a bit of relevance. The gentry dispute, which concerns the question was the English gentry rising or falling in the century before the Civil War and what does this have to do with the Civil War’s outbreak in 1642 might not sound relevant to the 20th century, but in fact it was. Karl Marx had said that a rising gentry caused the English Civil War, and the real question that was being debated here was Marx right.

Turning back to the American revisionist page, if you accept the Cold War revisionist case that if was the United States that was the aggressor, then that had a lot of relevance to how one understood the Cold War. Significantly, through Cold War revisionist school, through it was as old as the Cold War itself, did really start to become popular until the late 1960s, when the Vietnam War became unpopular. The heyday of Cold War revisionism was from the late 60s until the late 70s, precisely the same time period that the backlash against Vietnam was the greatest. The same thing goes with World War I revisionists in the 1920s-30s. The Treaty of Versailles had amongst other things, disarmed Germany, which is why the Germans tried so hard in that time period to discredit so-called the Kriegschuldlüge ("war guilt lie"). The obvious political relevance to this was that regardless if one brought into Fay’s version (everybody was guilty of starting the war in 1914) or Barnes’s version (Russia and France started the war in 1914), it still worked out the same-Germany did not start the war, and so Versailles should be scrapped. I know the page is about American historians, but I have a copy of Holger Herwig’s article “Clio Deceived” which is about German efforts to rewrite how World War I started in the interwar period, and that does have some bearing on the work of people like Fay and Barnes, and perhaps that should be brought into the page. Which brings up another topic I think we should consider, which is the impact of the writing of these various historians. In the case of the World War I revisionists, they did have an enormous impact on public opinion in the interwar period, and one of the main reasons for the sanguine public reaction to Germany ripping the Versailles treaty in the mid-1930s is because too many people had read books by people like Fay and Barnes, and believed that Germany did not start World War I, so Versailles was unjust. Just some thoughts. Thank you again for noticing my work, and inviting me to contribute to the page-I look forward to working with you!--A.S. Brown (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I find what you say extremely interesting. I would love to discuss this with you very much. However, User:Philip Baird Shearer has Restricted me from nine (9) unspecified articles in this area. So I think I should get permission from him to discuss this with you even here. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your confrontation with Toddy1

Take notice RE: WP:ANI against you

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE.

• A WP:ANI has been filed against you here: . --Ludvikus (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• The issue involves your work at world domination.
• Specifically it's alleged that you

1. Reverted twice (2x) against the consensus; and
2. Introduced WP:Original research & a WP:Neologism.

• --Ludvikus (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm not really interested in continuing a dispute with you. If there is a way to resolve our disaggreement - great.

• I believe you've Reverted the article against the consensus - that's not permitted by WP.
• I think you hail from the former Russian Empire, or Soviet Union - so maybe you know about a Russian concept of "world domination." But this is the English Encyclopedia. So we do not have that concept here.
• If we can solve our disagreement here - great. I'll drop the issue from WP:AHI.
• Let me know if we can come to an agreement together (without the help of an Administrator).

Thanks, --Ludvikus (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS1: More specifically, you might be from Ukraine (Dnepropetrovsk). I still cannot get used to NOT saying "The Ukraine." --Ludvikus (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS2: Is "Toddy" a he or a she? (I'm just curious). --Ludvikus (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Toddy1 has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chololately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

How do you think I feel about the notice you placed on my talk page?

I have nothing against you. I had never heard of you before you placed this on a page on my watch list. I looked and was curious. This led me to Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Merger proposal.

Please, can I make a few suggestions.

• The The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has entire paragraphs that have no citations. When you are talking about the World domination article, you call this original research and neologism. However, I strongly suspect that in the case of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article, the uncited facts are most likely true - they just lack citations. It would be a really great thing if someone who was actually interested in the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion went through the article and put in the missing citations.
• Like most people, I have never read the book, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But according to the summary of it in the article, in 1901 someone produced a a black propaganda book alleging that the Jews wanted to create something like the League of Nations (protocol 5). Why would people in 1901 have found this threatening? All of this needs better explaining in the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article. It would help a lot if the various allegations about what book says had quotations from the book, and citations to the relevant pages of the book. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a reliable source about what the book says (though an extremely misleading one for anything else).
• It is not clear from the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article that the book actually alleges that the Jews want to achieve world domination. Though it is clear that some people think that it does.
  • If the book does make this allegation, this needs to be made clear, with quotations from the book, and citations.
  • If, as you seem to be claiming in your alternative article on world domination, the book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was the origin of the idea world domination or world conquest, then this means that the book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is very significant. This claim ought to be put into the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article and backed by good quality citations (not from books by nutcases such as conspiracy theorists and "authorities on the occult"). I suggest that you need quotations and citations for this. If you do this, you must be prepared for people to advance contrary statements, which will also need to be backed by sources.
• Regarding the World domination article, I suggest that you leave it alone for a couple of months. If you are able to make the improvements to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article suggested above, then it can be dealt with later.

Finally, when you make posts on people's talk pages, please think about how they will feel about it. Big red polygons with white crosses are hardly likely to make people feel good about you. Use admin pages only as a last resort.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Dear User:Philip Baird Shearer. I would appreciate it very much if you advised me as to an appropriate response to this contributions to my talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dear User:Philip Baird Shearer. I would appreciate it very much if you advised me as to an appropriate response to this contribution (immediately above) to my talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • PS: Is he one and the the same person we met just before who expounded the Truth of The Protocols? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ukraina

• PS1: More specifically, you might be from Ukraine (Dnepropetrovsk). I still cannot get used to NOT saying "The Ukraine." --Ludvikus (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the English language, it is common to write "the" before the names of countries whose name begins with "U". For example:

• The United States of America
• The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
• The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• The Ukraine

No difference. This is a matter of the English language, not something the president of Our Ukraine is entitled to make rulings on.

In English there are two pronunciations of Ukraine. (1) like you-crane (2) like you-cry-n The version used on English language radio stations in Ukraine is (1).

The way Ukrainian people say the name of the country is oo-cry-ee-ne. I think Ukraina is better transliteration of this. But Ukraine is the English language word.

Ukraine is a good place for holidays. The best way to get there is to use Austrian Airlines, and change at Vienna. This airline does good quality maintenance on their aircraft and so is safe. You can get flights from Vienna to nice cities in Eastern and Central Ukraine. People in Eastern and Central Ukraine speak Russian as first language. People in the parts of Poland that were annexed in 1939 speak Ukrainian. Since I do not know your interests, I do not know if you would like Kiev. I think that if you are a nice guy, you would probably want to avoid it, and go somewhere nice like Dnepropetrovsk, or Donetsk. Climate is better is better in Dnepropetrovsk and Donetsk. Kiev is really great if you are looking for confidence tricksters, ticket touts who charge 50 Euro for 7 Euro ticket, or prostitutes. All hotels in Kiev have English language listings of prostitutes for use of foreigners, disguised as English language 'newspapers' with names like "Kyiv Post". Eastern and Central Ukraine are much better. Do you have holiday for Christmas and New Year. Why not take entire holiday in a city in Ukraine. Grand Hotel Ukraine in Dnepropetrovsk is very nice and in the middle of city.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

btw - synagogues easy to find in city centre in Dnepropetrovsk--Toddy1 (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Highways & byways

I've responded at my place. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Protocols

I have looked at the state of the article on the Protocols of Zion as it was at the end of 2006, and it is very easy to see that this deserved to be a featured article.

The current state of the article is not so good. I have made some improvements today and last night. But I think it the article at it is in late 2009 needs improving.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I just did that - improved the opening paragraph only (haven't checked your changes very carefully). --Ludvikus (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The changes I have made so far are of several types. I have been careful to state what they were in the summaries.

• Making citations clear. For example, I found that most of the first seven citations were unclear as to what document was being referenced. With one citation, I changed the text to a quotation from the source, as that made it clearly defensible; it did not change the sense of the text; again the source being cited was made clear.
• With the statement that the document was written in the first person singular, I corrected this, because it is mostly written in the first person plural.
• Minor typing corrections to edits I have made.

--Toddy1 (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I noticed your comments. But I made heavy changes to the content of the opening paragraph! I'm an expert in the field - I own almost everything important about this subject. I'm respected by the community in that area. I made many contributions to almost all the related article - even images. It's really very complicated stuff. So it's hard to write about. It's a challenge. And it's very easy to make a mistake. But I've been studying this stuff for years. Most people think it's just a "book." But it's not. In 1903 it was a series of articles in Znamya (newspaper). Have a nice Sunday - by the way, my family is from Ukraine - Drohobych, to be exact. My maternal grandfather owned three oil wells in the nearby town. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Drop it

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 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. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Your appearance at the ANI shifted the Consensus against me.

Are you a WP Administrator?

PS: Would be nice if your language were warmer, and less threatening. Don't you agree? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was already against you, as not one person has spoken up in your defence, in either the first ANI review I bought to review may action, or the one you have just initiated and given what you have written in this section I have closed this ANI request. Therefore:

The restriction I placed on you stands.

If you bring another ANI or similar for any reason, and no one supports you position, if I am aware that you have bought it, I will present this ANI as evidence of a pattern of disruption, and recommend that some other administrator blocks your account for a period of time. I hope that this statement will encourage your to exercise better judgement and only bring an ANI if another reasonable editor would consider the ANI to be within the spirit of the system and not disruptive. The reason I will make a recommendation and not impose a block myself is so that you will understand that this is not a vendetta by just one administrator against you personally, but is the general consensus of how editors on Wikipedia behave towards each other.

This interaction between you and me have been very time consuming, I suggest that you now resign yourself to the restrictions placed upon you, and follow the other suggestions that I and some other editors have given you on how to avoid conflict. Stick to your promise to walk away from conflict because despite what you said in the last ANI, you are on a form of probation and with an user log like this, you will remain on probation for a long time (see wp:disruption) -- PBS (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Why did you post this here, instead of the bottom of the page? I almost missed it!
2. I hope you realize how much effort I have to apply not to be provoked by the tone of your remarks above against me.
3. The issue is simple. I brought an ANI asking that I be unblocked from the Restrictions against my editing nine (9) unspecified articles involving Historical Revisionism. Restrictions which you imposed on me. Now the ANI was closed by you. That's how Wikipedia works - and I accept it.
4. My time is also valuable.
5. My obligation is to follow Wikipedia rules as best I can - and I'm doing so. I don't believe I'm running for office. My concern is mostly with Content of WP articles.
6. I need to tell you that I find your tone against me here extremely provocative. But Wikipedia obviously permits that to exist. Perhaps you find that to be a "Confrontation." But it is not. My effectiveness at Wikipedia will be destroyed if you, or anyone else believes, that I've been broken like a wild horse by Wikipedian administrative procedures.
7. You must know by now that I'm an excellent editor, especially as it relates to Content. And I'm getting better all the time. That's the ONLY reason I'm Restricted from editing nine (9) pages, and not Blocked for two years. It's unfortunate that you persist in your personal attack on me - here, on my own Talk page. It was sufficient for you to have told me that you've closed the ANI.
8. My promise was not to engage in any "Confrontation with an editor." You're not one - your an "Administrator." If you look at my record since I was unblocked, you will find that I have a 100% success rate at working productively with every single person at Wikipedia - but YOU.
9. I urge you to reconsider, please, your personal attacks on me. You could have phrased the above much more gently.
10. I will of course all of you're you're Restrictions to the best of my abilities - in spite of your un-necessary provocative tone above.

--Ludvikus (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Has Jimbo Wales accepted your offer?

Ludvikus, I was intrigued by the offer you made to Jimbo Wales (here). Out of interest, what sort of computer processor do you think will be required? - 86.25.252.8 (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ask Jimbo that. He knows Wikipedia hardware and software much better than I do. Also, ask about the computerized studies he commissioned regarding how Wikipedia works internally. Or Google for it if you wish. I'm sure WP has stuff on all that too - but I cannot at the moment tell you how to find it. But thanks for visiting my page. And best of luck to you at Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

New world order proposed move

I've relisted the move proposal for New world order at Talk:New world order#Requested move. Sorry for the inconvenience, but please recast your !vote (if desired) under the relisted request. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

World government

I hope you're not offended by my Reversion of your Reversion. I follow the 1 Reversion rule I've imposed on myself. I would love to discuss the issue with you on the Talk page. Please be open to my arguments. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm offended. However, I have explained myself on Talk:World government page regarding the issue of neologisms so let's continue the debate there if necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. But please be reminded of the Peer review advice you received by another editor on April 2009:

Wikipedia:Peer review/New World Order (conspiracy theory)/archive1

• I've researched the history of the article and found the above. I find that these are exactly the objections I've been expressing. Please lets find a common solution. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

World government (disambiguation)

This has just been created - thought this might interest you - it might help resolves some concerns of yours, no? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Loremaster (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Emmanuel Kant on World Government

I like your contribution on Kant! --Ludvikus (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If so, why do you keep mispelling his name? ;) --Loremaster (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

uh, why did you edit my sentence to make it seem that I wrote "dispelling" instead of "mispelling"? --Loremaster (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess my mind is playing tricks on me. I've Refracted the matter. My apology to you. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Regarding your first query - you might find this amusing: . --Ludvikus (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense but you're increasingly giving me reason to question your sanity... :/ --Loremaster (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sane. Sorry that I made you think otherwise. Let's give each other another chance. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine... --Loremaster (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Line in the sand

Please do not do disruptive things like blanking an existing redirect as you did here. It harms Wikipedia and looks like WP:POINT disrupting Wikipedia carelessly while focusing on the articles/controversies which are of particular interest to you. PamD (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC) (edited after comment on my talk page PamD (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you not put in a WP:RM for this move? -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Because of this WP:RM specific WP rule (& WP:Bold (as I'm quoting below):

I appreciate very much, PamD, that you've conceded that I was NOT editing "to prove a point." However, I'm still extremely upset by the personal attack on me as having made a "disruptive" edit. Editors at Wikipedia disagree disagree all the time, and Delete and Revert the work of one another. Just because you disagree with a SINGLE edit of mine does not justify your use of the word "disruptive" against me. That's extremely unfair, and does motivate me to leave Wikipedia. Assuming good faith about you, I can only imagine that you do not wish that. But that's precisely what you are doing. Why do you insist on calling my one single move "disruptive"? How many edits did you need to perform to un-do my edits? Did it take more than one, or "handful," clicks of your mouse? And dis it take more than a second? Maybe two seconds? Three ...? Please reconsider your opinion that what I've done is "disruptive". Otherwise, I'm motivated to leave Wikipedia substantive editing for a very long time. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting uncontroversial moves

"If the move you are suggesting is uncontroversial and technically possible, please feel free to move the page yourself".

• --Ludvikus (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS: Anyway, "what's the beef," the consensus for the proposed Move is in my favor?: . --Ludvikus (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been advised to treat all moves that you consider making a controversial move for the next few months, for similar reasons for using the 1RR rule. The whole point is to stop you getting into conflict and develop your collegiate skills. In this case I am going to revert the move and the administrator who close the Talk:Line in the sand (phrase)#Requested move can decide if there is a consensus for the moves. -- PBS (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see someone has beaten me to it. Which rather demonstrates why in your case you should treat all moves as potentially controversial and post requests for moves to WP:RM. -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

But this was an obviously "uncontroversial" Move. It was clear which was the "primary topic." I have NOT been so advised as you. You Restricted me from (9) articles about historical revisionism. What does that have to do with Moving a totally non-controversial WP Article relating to "Line in the sand." I would appreciate it if you drew your line in the sand for me at Wikipedia so I wouldn't disobey any of your non-explicit demands of me unintentionally. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If it was an obviously "uncontroversial" move, then it would not have been moved back. There is no formal restriction on you moving the occasional article, but because you are only recently back from a long block for disruption, common sense would suggest that you should discuss moves before making them to see if they are controversial, and the simplest way to do that is to post a requested move at WP:RM. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're complaining about regarding my WP conduct! I've done exactly as you just said. It's MY posting on the Talk page that the Move be determined by consensus! Don't you see my signature User:Ludvikus immediate below the proposed move?: Talk:Line in the sand (phrase) --Ludvikus (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

the history of the talk page shows that you posted a message at 03:31, 7 October 2009, and two minutes later you moved the page. Two minutes is nothing like long enough to wait to see if there is a consensus for a page move -- a WP:RM usually takes seven days. Surly the way to avoid conflict and keep you promise is not to force people to have to reverse controversial page move that you make, but waiting to see if there is a consensus for a move? -- PBS (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Method to Madness

OK. So why don't you come and discuss the matter at our Talk page of Talk:New World Order? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Because of two intertwined problems:

1. My time online is extremely limited so I sometimes don't have the time to discuss the reasons why I am opposed to a particular edit that I've reverted.
2. When I'm home, I can only access the Internet through my PlayStation 3. For some reason I'm trying to fix, the PS3 browser no longer allows me to log on to Wikipedia so I edit anonymously but I can only edit Wikipedia articles but I can't edit talk pages.

That being said, I'll try to wait until I can log and have the spare time to discuss before reverting good-faith edits. --Loremaster (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll slow down in order to adjust to a schedule which is convenient for you. Best wishes to you personally from me. Sincerely, --Ludvikus (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

New World Order

• I see you've put a lot of work into this article - I've now read the beginning of the Talk page; it appears to be you "baby" so to speak.
• Unfortunately, it looks like your WP:Original research. I'm quite convince of that now.
• You cannot have it both ways: (1) either it's about a belief - that the Earth is flat (a discredit thing). Or it's a study of several conspiracy theories - but why that title?

--Ludvikus (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous!

1. The entire article is based on reliable sources so I don't understand where you get the idea that there is any original research involved.
2. It should be obvious that there can be and there are several overlapping or conflicting pseudoscientific theories about Flat Earth. Therefore, an article simply called Flat Earth can be study of all those theories. The irony is that the Wikipedia article on Flat Earth is the best example of that! See for yourself: Flat Earth. ;)

--Loremaster (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue this conversation on the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page. --Loremaster (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/New World Order (conspiracy theory)/archive1

I've researched the history of the article and found the above. I find that these are exactly the objections I been expressing. Please lets find a common solution. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I should have done this before, I have now responded to all the objections on the archived peer review page for the New World Order conspiracy theory article. --Loremaster (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue this conversation on the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page. --Loremaster (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

World Domination

Hi Ludvikus. I will try and slip a mention of the Protocols back into the article when people lose interest in the latest whatever. Clearly it belongs there as the most important WD conspiracy theory in history. Cheers. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your recognition of the issue very much! Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I've reverted your major changes to the article in question. Please ask for comment before changing the lede to refer to something completely different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ALI ASSAD

Useful advice :- OK Thanks a lot bro ALI ASSAD (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! --Ludvikus (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Because no one else is talking there and i dont know how to start the talk page. This is it >> what should i do about it ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_arrivals_series&action=edit&redlink=1

ALI ASSAD (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just click on "discussion" - the 2nd Tab of the Article page. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes i see this and exactly this is the link i have placed above, what i meant to ask was for some special kind of rules and regulations if there are an. Anyhow i am very thankful for your generosity of every precious moment you spent to guide.ALI ASSAD (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should "WP Adopt" you, or be your WP:Mentor? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK whats the difference in both "WP Adopt" and WP:Mentor? ? ALI ASSAD (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should have written for you "WP:Adopt", or WP:Adopt, or [[WP:Adopt]] instead. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK but I am a muslim and u i guess are jewish ??? Wouldnt this be a problem for you ? ALI ASSAD (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not! I love ALL People, Cultures, & Civilizations for the Good produced in this World.

And don't assume I'm "Jewish."

Maybe I am, or maybe I'm not.

You should study this: WP:Assume good faith.

As-Salamu Alaykum. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ok i will try to learn what ::::::, #####, ***** means thank you bro!ALI ASSAD (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)