User talk:Banno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old stuff: [1], [2], [3] [4] [5] [6]

Contents 1 Good Job, Archivist Banno 2 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singerman list 3 The Morning Post 4 National Labor Federation 5 FORMAL COMPLAINT -- NATLFED article 6 Chinese in the Russian Revolution 6.1 Vandalism 7 NATLFED -- WHOSASKING for understanding 8 "mentally damaged person" --User:Mikkalai 8.1 48 hour Block on the other - editor/administrator 8.2 3RR Reversion violation at Chinese in Russian Revolution 9 The image on my user profile page 10 The Alan Carter Crusade 11 Please take a look at this

[edit] Good Job, Archivist Banno

Much appreciated - You're a good Archivist! Thanks for archiving my too loooooong Talk/Discussion page.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wish all my customers were as grateful ! Banno 21:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on what you do for, or to them. Ludvikus 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singerman list

An editor jumped the gun and did the above when I had a mere stub there. Now he changed his mind but his actions remains. I wonder what your position would be? Can you drop by there and leave your comment? Thanks. Ludvikus 03:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in this topic, and have a matching understanding. Looks like it will either be kept or merged, so it shouldn't be a problem for you. Banno 08:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No wonder you support the view that Philosophy is Rational (or some cognates of the same) enquiry.

And what did Aristotle not enquire about? Or Bertrand Russell? Or Hegel (but him you don't like, right?)?

Best, --Ludvikus 11:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Morning Post

Dear Banno,

I think I finally have a small editors' war - this time over something silly. I hold that "The" belongs to the name of the paper above. My opponent disagrees and keeps reverting my edit. I've given supportive arguments & citations on the Talk page. He just says there's no evidence, etc. Could you put on your Administrator hat and get over there to resolve the dispute? Thanks. --Ludvikus 15:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Labor Federation

Problems with User:Malbrain continue.[7] Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

But what grounds are there for a block, according to WP:BAN? I sort of hoped that given some rope, he might provoke a stronger response and so provide warrant for a block, but that has not occurred. Frankly, I don't see these mostly harmless, although incoherent, talk page ramblings as problematic; you might consider a short-term block in the hope that his interests will move elsewhere. I will not unblock him again. Banno 01:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the unusual tone of my presentation in editing both the article and the talk page. I've tried a new approach for the recruitment section, and we'll just have to see what user CBERLET does next. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 23:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, user CBERLET reverted my work on the recruitment section -- he just spouts JARGON as a magic-keyword and hits his button. What am I supposed to do about this? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FORMAL COMPLAINT -- NATLFED article

User CBerlet is hereby charged with obstructing development of the NATLFED article. What do I need to do to lodge this complaint formally? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 18:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the helpful pointers on my talk page. I'll try to go through all the material tomorrow during the day while I'm at work.karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 23:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've updated my user-talk page with the latest status on this dispute. Again, thanks for taking the time to sort this out. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese in the Russian Revolution

Dear Banno,

How are you?

I have a problem with a User in the Article above. He has Reverted my editing Three times - in violation of the WP Rule. His name is User:Irpen. I guess you would call it an edit war by now. I Removed an inappropriate, racist, Propaganda Poster, and he is the only one who objects. If you are going to Protect the page, please do so with my version (no Poster) since I have not violated the rule against Reverting Three Times. Thank you. --Ludvikus 05:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I count three reverts - that's the limit. Any more from either party would be a violation, and attract a block. I see no reason to protect at this stage. Banno 08:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well my editorial adversary has reverted for the fourth time.
• He has disregarded the Talk page (the remedy you recommended).
• Since I did Not revert more than three (3) times, I ask that the Block be made with my version.
• I maintain that the Racist Propaganda Poster of Trotsky is unsourced/unreferenced and does not support the article.
• Accordingly, please Revert to my version, and Block the Article. Thanks. --Ludvikus 02:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I still count three reverts by Irpen [8],[9],[10],and one by Makkalai [11], as well as the three by yourself. Banno 03:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so it's 3 per editor, not total reverts per article? --Ludvikus 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am appalled by Ludvikus' resorting to block shopping when unable to get the article your way by other means. --Irpen 05:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think User:Irpen thinks I'm "block shopping" by contacting you, Banno. He is apparently unaware that you are an Administrator. You are a person I should contact regarding editorial disputes.

Banno, what do you think, should I leave Antisemitism and return to Philosophy now? --Ludvikus 12:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the appropriate thing to do would be to use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, if a breach of that rule occurs. Banno 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Banno, I'll remember that in the future. --Ludvikus 21:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

It would be nice, for a change, if you helped avoid getting into trouble before hand. Or do you think I should return to philosophy? I believe that Editor User:Mikkalai just Vandalized my work. I ask you to examine the situation and advise accordingly - so that I will not be Blocked forever!!!

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at what you wrote here, Ludvikus. It doesn't tell me what was vandalised, nor why you think it constitutes vandalism. What situation are you talking about? It doesn't provide me with anything that I can use to help you, yet it is written as if I have a responsibility to lend you some assistance. Are you threatening to disrupt the philosophy articles if I do not do something? What is it that you want me to do? Put plainly, the post above is disruptive. Continue on this course, and I will block you. Banno 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been frustrated with User:Mikkalai Reverting my work twice at Chinese in the Russian Revolution. But #Adminstrator User:BrownHairedGirl has come through and I think solved the problem.

1. I did not know Reverting arbitrarily is distinct from Vandalism. The difference was made clear to me by another.
2. Also, the Page at the Chinese in the Russian Revolution is now locked, and I and two other editors, including a wonderful Adminstrator named Richard, seem to be working things out.
3. But I'm "shocked" that you consider my proposal to return to Philosophy to be a threat in which you now say you're going to block me. You really think that's a "threat"? I was saying that this experience here was becoming no less frustrating than there, at philosophy.
4. You had complimented me on my return - now you responded to me like you really are looking for me to mess up so you could block me. Why?
5. Let me tell you again: BHG has solved the problem.
6. It would be nice if you looked at the number of Reversions which User:Mikkalai has used up against me, refusing to make peace with me, and you showed some fairness towards me. I already know how harsh you are regarding misconduct at Wikipedia.
7. What I've not seen yet is a sense of Fairness towards me. Why is it that you do not give some Warning to this editor named Mikkalai who will not compromise with me whatsoever. Why don't you look at the history of my offer to make peace with him?
8. I'm asking you for help precisely because you are a tough guy when you believe that someone has violated WP Rules.
9. Yet I am trying to tell you that this particular user has no respect for me whatsoever - and what do you do? You tell me that you are going to block me if this keeps up.
10. I suspect we are having communication problems You and I.
11. Please, please, please, have a talk with User:Mikkalai and ask him what the problem is.

Thank you. --Ludvikus 23:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

--Ludvikus 23:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NATLFED -- WHOSASKING for understanding

"Malbrain, I can't understand you, in either your comments to the talk page..." is the criteria being used by user WHOSASKING to make reverts of my edits. Since when does any one editor have to understand all the material of a subject known by the other editors? karl m {{User electrical engineer}} 01:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "mentally damaged person" --User:Mikkalai

OK, Banno, I understand. I'll do my best to heed your advice.

But look what just happed while I was reading your letter.

I do not respond well to provocation - which you must know.

I do believe you are sincere.

But can you please come to my defense for a change?

What did I do to deserve this latest outburst? This personal attack?

“

I am fine with article protected with this glaring nonsense in the middle. I will not mediate with this obviously mentally damaged person. If wikipedia don't want or cannot deal with such people, my only answer here is the revert button. If you don't see the idiotism or intentional disruption in this page, let us wait until some newspaper makes a laughing stock of it. `'Míkka 03:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

”

• Please help me for a change against this kind of abuse.
• It's very, very, difficult to follow your advice when a Wikipedian calls me a "mentally damaged person."

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you need a thick hide to edit here. Such rudess is unwanted, and certainly does not help whatever case Míkka thinks he or she is presenting. Let the situation cool down - there is no necessity to respond. Banno 04:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 48 hour Block on the other - editor/administrator

Dear Banno,

You must know that BHG has imposed a 48 hour Block on the other editor involved in the so-called disruption.

That issue is under discussion on the Administrator's notice board. In that regard, my conduct is also being discussed.

At the same time, you probably more than anyone else, knows me best as a Wikipedian.

So I'm rather surprised that you are not voicing your view there.

I urge you to do so - I do not think that I'm as unreasonable as some are depicting me.

I think you can portray a more balanced picture of me than anyone else at Wikipedia can because you know me best.

I think that BHG could benefit from your observation.

I do not wish to believe that Wikipedia is merely a matter of consensus and politics.

I think it is your duty to participate in that discourse.

You, especially, are extremely knowledgable as to her actions regarding myself.

I do not understand why your voice is not there - on that notice board.

Do you, or do you not, support her 48-hour Block of Mikkalai?

You cannot remain neutral on this - you, of all people, know what happened best - you have been observing me very carefully to see if I should be banned forever.

So your judgment as to User:Mikkalai's contribution - if any - to the alleged disruption at Wikipedia is more informed. :According, I urge you to make your views known.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Reversion violation at Chinese in Russian Revolution

Keeping you posted, I'm proceeding with extreme caution so as to avoid anything which might be construed as "disruption."

Now I wish to inform you that there has been a third Reversion by Administrator User:Mikkalai.

I certainly had nothing to do with that latest incident at Chinese in the Russian Revolution. Nor do I intend to touch that page except with a "ten-foot-pole."

I wonder what your response to that will be. Is this Administrator just too powerful? Is that what you mean by consensus? Is it a matter of being able to stand up to his misconduct? Is bullying to be tolerated at Wikipedia?

Is that what is mean by "consensus" at Wikipedia?

Cheers. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder at you, Ludvikus. Can you really not see that your post above is rude and provocative? I am not under any obligation to you, nor to the 3RR rule. If you have spotted a breach, you can post it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. As for you proceeding with caution, your post indicates to me that you have yet to realise what is problematic in your behaviour. Banno 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see my rudeness at all.

You made it clear to me that you are under the lookout

to see if I violate any rules whatsoever so that you may conclude

that I be Blocked from Wikipedia forever.

It's my neck that's on the line, not yours.

I've also pointed out the extreme vulgarity and provocation by this person who is the other partner in the alleged disruption. And you have done nothing about it but lecture me about needing to have a "tuff skin" at WP.

And now you say that I'm "rude"? To whom? To him? To you? Who am I rude to?

My understanding is that you do have an obligation both to me and to Wikipedia.

It is you who supported my being blocked.

It is you who knows me better than any other administrator.

I think that Administrator BHG has identified the other partner to the dispute.

And you know what's going on very well - because you said often that you've been watching me carefully.

So i'm simply asking you to do the right thing here.

I'm utterly shocked to hear you say that you have no obligation.

That definitely makes me want to leave Wikipedia forever.

I urge you to make your views on the matter known - which is your duty as an Administrator who has been directly involved with all the parties herein.

I do not think that it is proper for you to just let things blow over.

That makes me feel that Wikipedia is a club of "in" and "out" where the "in" know how to behave.

I do not wish to be in such company.

So I can assure you that my behavior at Wikipedia will be cautious in the extreme.

In that way I can only be Blocked because I will not conform to the unfair "boys club" rules of the "back room."

That's how your response above makes me feel.

Can you take it? Or will you block me for that alone?

Yours truly,

PS1: I am absolutely shocked by your response above, Banno.

PS2: Let me remind you, that it was you who contact me

after your 6-month Block of me over Philosophy.

It is you who has tarnished my record as a Disruptor.

Every time an Administrator looks at my record, (s)he sees Your 6-month Block

So, yes, absolutely, you do have a special responsibility towards me, even if you do not see it.

Yours truly --Ludvikus 00:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The image on my user profile page

Is this an acceptable image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I am eclipsed (talk • contribs) 05:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's kinda ugly though; I made it with my computer's paint feature. I'll likely request it be deleted and upload another, BETTER image for my user profile. Anyways, thanks for the welcome. I am eclipsed 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Alan Carter Crusade

The page Alan Carter (philosopher) and several related spellings thereof have been recently created by someone using several IPs (including this one) and registered accounts such as User:Carterab and User:Carterab1952. The philosopher is non-notable and the user (I'm positive it's one person) has resorted to vandalism and the removal of critical comments on talk pages in order to promote the pages (which I would bet my bottom dollar are about himself). The pages should all be deleted, and the registered accounts and IPs blocked, but I have no idea how to go about putting in requests for that kind of thing. I ask for your assistance in getting this done, as well as any instructions on how to proceed on similar matters in the future . Thanks. Postmodern Beatnik 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look at this

It's almost done: Glossary of philosophical isms.

The Transhumanist 04:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)