Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:38, 10 November 2010

Welcome!

Hi Justus Maximus! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Service

Do you have a link to Robert Service`s book please? mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't got a link to it. But I've read it a few times and there is no way Service is "unreliable". All these sources are being systematically suppressed by the same Marxist apologist brigade that suppressed the Marx quote from Radzinsky's book since 1996 and controls the whole Misplaced Pages project! Justus Maximus (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, but do yourself a favour Marxist apologist brigade will be called a personal attack. Some editors here game the system to get people topic banned from articles if they have the "Wrong" point of view. I`m sure you can see whom i`m on about. You need to remain entirely dispassionate at all times or they will be on you like fleas on a beggar mark nutley (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Communist terrorism are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. TFD (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And just to let you know, certain editors will use any reason possible to drop these stupid templates on your talk page and use them in future as "Proof" that they tried to sort things out. Next will be hatting of your comments (been tried once though i reverted it) as WP:SOAP so keep an eye out for that as well. The usual method of some editors is to rile people into making rash comments which will then be used as proof you WP:PA so you basicly need to ignore these templates mark nutley (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks everybody. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

You are being discussed at ANI and may respond here. TFD (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Basic formating

I am getting really fed up of having to insert colons for you - READ and then APPLY WP:INDENT --Snowded 12:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid we have to continue there

Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit at ANI

I ahve reverted your edit at ANI which reverted to a version from 18 October. You are free to unarchive threads to respond to them but please don't revert the entire noticeboard wholesale, removing newer reports, just to respond to an archived thread. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You did it again. Please remember to only click "edit" on the most recent revision of the page and not older ones, because it deletes all the subsequent content. --Errant 12:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re ANI discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you are involved. . AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 00:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your refusal to conform to Misplaced Pages standards

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Further to your comments regarding 'distortion'

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Favonian (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not aware of any content or template from Misplaced Pages that I'm supposed to have removed or blank paged. Please explain Justus Maximus (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This and this. Favonian (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And according to this edit ummary you have done something similar before. Favonian (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say I removed anything? I did nothing of the sort. The only thing I ever did was not to remove anything but add responses to other editors' posts! Justus Maximus (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the diffs? Looks like you revert to an older version of ANI, thus removing the more recent contributions. Not sure how you do it, let alone why, but it's highly disruptive. Favonian (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you aren't sure how I did it, then you should consider the possibility that I might not have done it at all in the first place. Why on earth would I revert or remove anything? What's going on here??? Justus Maximus (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what we are asking you. If it happened once, it could be a coincidence, but this seems to be recurring. Favonian (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm telling you I did NOTHING of the sort nor do I have any interest, desire, inclination, or time to do so! You should be able to find out who did what you are claiming, shouldn't you??? Justus Maximus (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Besides, there is absolutely NO point sending me links to your ANI page since I haven't the faintest idea as to what all that Misplaced Pages Jargon means!!!Justus Maximus (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned in another section here; it looks like you are editing an old version of the page. That's the only conceivable explanation I can see. Is that the case? --Errant 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what I'm editing since I don't understand your Misplaced Pages jargon. In any case, I have NEVER removed anything either on new or old versions of anything. If you choose to accuse me of anything, at least have the decency to explain exactly what you are accusing me of and also show that I am in fact culpable and that there is not something/somebody else behind it! Justus Maximus (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything! Please WP:AGF. And I cannot explain it any more clearly; if you review the links provided, they are edit summaries showing the changes made to the page; changes you made to the page. In the edits content is deleted and other content restored from the past; for that reason it looks like for some wierd reason you are editing a historical revision of the page which results in deleting everything added to the page since then. I'm sorry I can put that in no simpler way. --Errant 15:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but I've never reverted anything. All I did was to add a response to posts addressed to, or concerning, myself and then clicked "save page". Why would that have reverted the page to older versions??? What you're saying doesn't make sense! Justus Maximus (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no sense for me to revert ANI pages to earlier versions as that would involve deletion of my latest posts in which I'm defending my position. Besides, every time I clicked "save page" my last post was shown as posted. So, sorry, but your version of events doesn't make sense any which way you look at it. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Misplaced Pages is getting just too complicated for anyone to be able to use it properly. As another example, take all these "edit conflicts" that force you to spend ages trying to post anything. Maybe making it hard for everyone is the idea, right? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you editing the whole page? If you tweak your settings (link at the top of the page) you can get "edit" links for each section, which cuts down on the edit conflicts. I am really not sure what is going on for certain; but it looks a lot like you are editing a past version of the page; you understand that Wiki pages have a revision history? The sections you were replying to were removed from the page by the archive bot, I believe, and so you must have been editing a previous revision of the page. If that is the case, and you save that change, it "reverts" the whole current version of AN/I to that historical revision, plus your comment. You must be doing accessing these pages somehow; it should be something fairly obvious as well, it's not a simple thing to do (and you would have a great big warning on top when you're editing) --Errant 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I told you I don't know what I'm editing as I don't understand any of that jargon on Misplaced Pages pages. Either it's a systemic flaw or, quite conceivably, I'm doing something wrong somewhere. If the latter is the case, it's obviously entirely unintentional. I can't now retrace all my paces as I was posting things and doing other stuff (outside Misplaced Pages) at the same time, whilst struggling with a barrage of "edit conflicts", etc. All I know is I was trying to respond to posts on the page I was requested to view following the link provided here. If you think I've "reverted" anything to older versions, then you can rest assured it wasn't my intention to do so and you are free to restore the page/s to whatever you think should be the "correct" version. This is all getting extremely complicated and tedious and I'm beginning to doubt that the idea to make any contributions to Misplaced Pages articles was a good one. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Off-line editing

It seems that many of your editing troubles arise from off-line editing. I guess you use some word processor to edit your comments. This may lead to an unnoticed edit conflict if others have edited the page. Before posting anything you should press the "Show changes" button to check that only your edits are reflected in the change.

Another problem with off-line editing is that you are not using Wiki markup to format your comments. The text may look great on MS Word but becomes an incomprehensible wall of text when you paste it to Misplaced Pages. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Before posting anything you should press the "Show changes" button to check that only your edits are reflected in the change.

That's exactly what I've been doing all along, thanks. As for word processors, the "edit conflict" comes up even when I type things straight on the Misplaced Pages page. So, it's not altogether unreasonable to surmise that there may be other reasons there. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

De-escalation?

Not here to offer more threats of banning similar to those I've seen elsewhere, just some general advice as things seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot and degenerated from there. Take a deep breath. Wiki-Email me at your convenience if you wish. No rush. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but why would I email anyone? I don't even know who you are. My initial impression that Misplaced Pages suffers from a pro-Marxist bias may or may not have been correct (it remains to be definitely established), but after the last attacks and threats, I'm beginning to wonder whether it isn't actually even more sinister than that. At any rate, ganging up on newcomers like that is the kind of behavior one usually associates with religious sects. So, rightly or wrongly, I prefer to stick to my doubts about Misplaced Pages and its editors for the time being. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not suffer from a pro-Marxist bias, any more than the world in general. The problem you are facing is that Misplaced Pages is communism. Individualism is sanctioned and collectivism is encouraged. There is no need here for valiant individual effort, the collective work of the people will achieve the desired outcome. Expertise and opinion only mark you out as an enemy of the people. If you want to survive, keep your head down. Above all make sure you are not noticed by the KGB, or even worse the Party Central Committee. Even if you follow every rule some envious neighbor may inform on you. If you make too much noise you are sure to end up spending ten years at the GULAG in Siberia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Cannot fully agree. The only analogy between WP and Communist is that in both cases people work not for money but for what they believe is a common good. However, one of important things abuot Misplaced Pages is that it is not a democracy. That means that, e.g., my opinion may outweigh the opinions of several editors if I use reliable sources and do that correctly, whereas others rely mostly on their beliefs and cannot support their assertions with reliable sources. To successfully edit Misplaced Pages JM must learn to listen other's opinion and to correctly use reliable sources (under correctly I mean not to draw conclusions that are not explicitly stated there, and to take into account what all, not only this particular reliable source say.)

With regard to this particular case, JM has no hope to success, because the idea he tries to push directly contradicts to what majority sources state.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that JM is entirely wrong about the 'religious sect' analogy - he's not the first one to make this. Whatever Misplaced Pages is though, it's a product of collective human actions. Then again, so was the Hundred Years War... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I don't think you will ever succeed in pushing your theories here either, e.g., that strakh doesn't mean terror, that Lenin never advocated/practiced terrorism, etc. Fortunately, since the state archives in Russia have been made available to objective researchers, more and more material exposing Communism is coming to light. The diehard dinosaurs with one foot in the grave and the other in the Communist past won't live forever. So I'm not going to spend sleepless nights about that. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Petri Krohn, I was beginning to worry about getting excommunicated and condemned to eternal damnation in the infernal extra-Misplaced Pages wilderness. However, as I've never been a confirmed believer I don't care one way or the other. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Russian sources, you may be very surprised to learn that opening of formerly classified Soviet archives (so called "archival revolution") lead many researchers (e.g. Conquest) to partially re-consider their previous position about the number of the victims of Stalinism, etc. I would say, this archival revolution lead to the death of many Cold War era myths, and generally lead to revision of many aspects of Soviet history, which lead to improvement of the image of the USSR. See, e.g. the works of Jeffrey Roberts. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's Geoffrey Roberts. My apparent anonymity in some quarters gives me hope. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you are right, Peters. However, you have to agree that that was the only error in this my post. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Roberts makes interesting reading, however, I can't say more for another 78 days, 15 hours, and 45 minutes. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll be glad to renew this discussion after that. Au revoir. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

More on ANI - please respond.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

Per your responses to the fairly simple request found here, I have removed your editing privileges until you are able to make an unequivocal response. You may do so on this page, and I am sure that someone will note it at the ANI discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC) ps. I have not templated you, as you are an established editor, but will provide a link to Misplaced Pages:APPEAL for your convenience.

Objection: As stated in my post of 16:27 27 October 2010 (UTC) on AN/I, and as confirmed by several editors there I have complied with Elen of the Roads request to remove or refactor the phrase "pro-terrorist" from the relevant text. As evident from the same post, not only did I do so quite UNEQUIVOCALLY, but also UNCONDITIONALLY. In conclusion, your extraordinary accusation is utterly devoid of merit and can only be explained by assuming political commitment on your part. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it is evident that I have been attacked - and now banned - for providing evidence showing that Marx advocated terrorism, the attacks having started when I provided the allegedly unknown quote from Marx's "Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna", and culminating in a ban coinciding with my providing reliable sources (like Bernstein and Kautsky) showing this to be the case. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My above contention finds further confirmation in the following facts:

(1) Elen of the Roads attacks me for allegedly conducting a "crusade to expose Marx as a terrorist" (as if providing sources relevant to the article or section under discussion could be designated or construed as a "crusade"), while being completely silent on Paul Siebert's own crusade to suppress an article on Communist terrorism.

(2) My concerns regarding Paul Siebert's use of false statements to suppress sources showing Marx's or Lenin's advocacy of terrorism are being systematically ignored in spite of the fact that this renders any objective dicussion impossible.

(3) Paul Siebert is allowed to use the AN/I page to promote his pro-Marxist views by alleging that Marxism "is a well recognised scientific doctrine", the logical implication being either (a) that Marxism never advocates terrorism or (b) if it does so, it is on "scientific", and hence acceptable, grounds, which has been his position on the discussion page and on which basis he has been arguing for the exclusion of Marx's advocacy of terrorism from an article on Communist terrorism.

(4) Paul Siebert's allegation to the effect that I believe that "Marxism = terrorism", he made on the AN/I page, is false. "Marxism = terrorism" may be found in a comment by AndyTheGrump on the Discussion page, "Move article" section, 16:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC). Justus Maximus (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus, since you are a newbie, I've taken the liberty of posting an unblock template on your behaf with your reason stated below. In regard to "assuming political commitment", that isn't really a valid observation, it is plausible that the blocking admin could have been tired and blocked you without realising that you did indeed comply with Ellen's request, and now you have potentially offended him with your assumption of his "political commitment". Also expressing the content issues you have with Paul Siebert is irrelevant here and should be removed. Paul and I have had our disagreements in the past, but I do respect him as he is open to considering other arguments and views. The most common mistake newbies do is to believe that content issues are somehow relevant to ANI, when all that admins in fact only look at behaviour. Newbies then mistakenly think that since boards like ANI ignore the underlying content issue there must be some kind of "political commitment". This is a common mistake. The best course of action is thus to remove your viewpoint of Paul above and instead seek some form of content dispute resolution like mediation. --Martin (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As stated in my post of 16:27 27 October 2010 (UTC) on AN/I, and as confirmed by several editors there I have complied with Elen of the Roads request to remove or refactor the phrase "pro-terrorist" from the relevant text. As evident from the same post, not only did I do so quite UNEQUIVOCALLY, but also UNCONDITIONALLY.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline per my comment below. Nothing in the rambling discussion so far indicates that Justus Maximus himself actually requests a review and revocation of this block. They are free to make an unblock request at any time. See WP:GAB for advice.  Sandstein  21:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Comment by blocking admin I have "detached" the subsequent commentary into a subheading below, so that reviewing admins and other uninvolved parties may have any discussion with Justus Maximus regarding the block and unblock request unencumbered. I have no opinion on any of the commentary otherwise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Reviewer's comment: This unblock request was not made by the blocked user, but by Martintg. It seems to me that only the blocked user has standing to request that the block be lifted, because no other users are adversely affected by the block. But nowhere on this page does Justus Maximus say that he wants to be unblocked. He clearly disagrees with the reasons for the block, but that's not the same as requesting unblock. I'm not sure whether this request is actionable, therefore, but leave it open for others to assess.  Sandstein  22:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

He clearly disagrees with the reasons for the block

The "reasons" for the block are irrational. I can't remove/refactor anything from my statements unless and until I'm told what exactly I'm supposed to remove/refactor. Clearly, the block is politically motivated. Justus Maximus (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am also concerned about this block, given what seemed to me like a good faith effort to comply with a request to remove a diff. I really don't want to drag it back to ANI, but I would at least like it to be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. Kansan (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Perhaps, would a confirmation from Justus Maximus that he agrees with the unblock request be sufficient to have it considered? Kansan (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent commentary

From JMs posting on Talk:Communist_terrorism/Archive_3 datestamped 13:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC):

It ought to be obvious to everyone that Marxist terrorism cannot be correctly understood without prior understanding of key Marxist concepts such as “class struggle”, “dictatorship of the proletariat” and “revolutionary violence.”

In a simplified form, the problem may be formulated as follows:

History = Class struggle = Revolutionary violence = Terrorism''

My comment that JM was making the assertion that 'Marxism = Terrorism' is evidently correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is obvious to any right-thinking person that my formula says "History = Terrorism" NOT "Marxism = Terrorism". Ergo, both Paul Siebert's and your statement are false! Justus Maximus (talk)

Martin, you are saying:

"The most common mistake newbies do is to believe that content issues are somehow relevant to ANI, when all that admins in fact only look at behaviour. Newbies then mistakenly think that since boards like ANI ignore the underlying content issue there must be some kind of "political commitment". This is a common mistake"

Thanks for the advice. However, if that were the case, the admins would have acknowledged my complaints regarding Paul Siebert's disruptive behavior, which is what my post on AN/I was really about. Instead, they ignored my complaints. In addition, I politely requested to be advised as to where I can lodge my complaints if AN/I was not the appropriate place for this. This request was also ignored. Finally, if the pro-Marxist bias is just my imagination, do you have a rational explanation for the systematic suppression of sources showing Marx's (and other Marxists leaders') advocacy of terrorism, the domination of the discussion by non-historians like Paul Siebert, etc., etc.? Justus Maximus (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, how can I remove my viewpoint of Paul Siebert when his behavior and the admins' toleration of it makes the discussion impossible? Justus Maximus (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There remain on Talk:Communist terrorism quite a few similar comments made by Justus Maximus that were not removed. There may be more but going through all these comments is time-consuming. We need to know that this type of editing will not continue in future.

• c) though the only logical way to remedy the blatant imbalance in the above section is to include quotes by/on other leaders who are known to have endorsed and practiced terrorism all attempts to do so have been systematically blocked with impunity by the apologists for Marxist terrorism who have done their best to sabotage and wreck both the article and the discussion. (3) Among the tactics deployed by the apologist wreckers and saboteurs the following may be identified as representative examples... (f) apologist literature is being quoted in a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism....13:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• It has been claimed by the Marxist apologist camp - and let’s stop the silly pretence that there is no Marxist apologist camp here.... 11:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• I would rather start a blog or website on the subject and provide all the sources there (where they can't be removed by apologists for Marxist terrorism.... 17:53, 14 October 2010

TFD (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Objection: The above statements were not removed:

(1) because I was not specifically asked to do so,

(2) because I was banned BEFORE I had a chance to remove them,

(3) using phrases such as "Marxist apologist" does not constitute offensive behavior under any recognized legislation I am aware of. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

'using phrases such as "Marxist apologist" does not constitute offensive behaviour under any recognized legislation I am aware of'. Regardless of whether this is true or not (and I'd seek legal advice before I tried it in some contexts), this is Misplaced Pages, a privately-owned website that allows people to contribute to the project provided they conform to the standards asked. Such standards, quite reasonably, include a regard for basic civility. If you want to be offensive, you can (within the relevant legal restraints), you just can't do it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Objection: It ought to be obvious that what I meant was that I was unaware that phrases such as "Marxist apologist" were "offensive" to anyone. Indeed, I was convinced editors like you and Paul Siebert would have taken them as a compliment. The way Elen of the Roads phrased it lent itself to the interpretation that his/her concerns were solely in respect of the "pro-terrorist" part which, hypothetically speaking, could have had a bearing on US or some other legislation even though as I explained on ANI my comments referred to Marxist terrorism in the period of from Marx to Lenin, NOT to the present. You can't logically have a discussion about that historical period and then suddenly claim it's about the present!!! Justus Maximus (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "how can I remove my viewpoint of Paul Siebert when his behavior and the admins' toleration of it makes the discussion impossible?" I believe you genuinely misunderstand some key things about Misplaced Pages. If you decided to work here you thereby agree to do that as neutrally as possible. Of course, that is hard to do in practice, however, one has at least acknowledge his/her inherent non-neutrality. I myself fully understand that I am biased (personally), that is why I am trying to do my best to be polite and correct towards the editors who display the opposite bias, and to take into account their opinions, although that does not mean that I accept everything they write.

For instance, the editor who left a post in your support on the talk page (Martin), is a proponent of the views that are close to your views, namely, that Communist state terror should be discussed in the article about Communist terrorism. Although I personally disagree with that, however, I found that the sources he use as a support for his claims are reliable and they really state that. Therefore, I cannot fully reject the edits proposed by him.

However, that does not mean that I have to accept them in full, because many other reliable sources do not describe these events as terrorism.

How can these two points of view (Martin's and mine) be reconciled? I proposed to do that as follows. The article should focus on the phenomenae that are considered as terrorism by all reliable sources. These are Red brigades and similar terrorist groups. However, in a separate section the article should specify that the term "terrorism" is vague, and no commonly accepted strict definition of this term exist by now. As a result, according to some sources, such phenomenae as the acts of state terror committed by Communist authorities (attach the list) are also considered as the acts of terrorism. We may also add that some authors believe that Marx and other classics of Marxism expressed terrorist views in their works (although I personally dislike that, I will not object if someone provided reliable secondary sources that state that).

That would be a neutral way to present what the sources state, and that is what I have been proposing for several times on the talk page. By contrast, you insisted on writing the article based solely on your vision of the issue, and you believed the fact that you found a couple of sources on that account allows you to reject what other editors and sources say. That is not how Misplaced Pages works, and if you want to continue to edit Misplaced Pages you must re-consider such your behaviour.

If my explanation is clear for your and you agree to modify your editorial style, just let me know. I'll try to convince the administrator who blocked you to lift the block.

Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like what somebody says, it isn't necessary to yell objection JM, this isn't a TV courtroom drama. Are you seriously trying to suggest that anyone would take the term 'Marxist apologist' as a complement in a context where you argued that Marx advocated terrorism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy, please remember that JM is currently blocked, so he cannot complain even theoretically. And, in general, can you please be more calm? --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok Paul, fair point - I'll remove the offending remark. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that anyone would take the term 'Marxist apologist' as a complement in a context where you argued that Marx advocated terrorism

In your and Paul Siebert's case, without a doubt!!! Justus Maximus (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, what evidence have you ever produced to show that sources like Bernstein, Kautsky, Kolakowski, Service, and many

others are not reliable?

What is the basis for your belief that the discussion should be dominated and directed by non-historians like yourself?

Why do you keep using original research to suppress historical facts such as Marx and Lenin's advocacy of terrorism in a discussion on Communist terrorism??? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

1. You seem to be absolutely unable to understand others' point of view. I never claimed these sources are not reliable, my point was that other sources exist also.
2. Misplaced Pages is being edited by amateurs (even real scientists edit WP under nicknames), so it is natural to conclude that every discussion here is dominated by amateur historians (or "non-historians").
3. Re-read my post. If that will not help, please, read it twice.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

How about your false claim that the word "terror" doesn't occur in the sources???

I'm not talking about "real scientists editing under nicknames", I'm talking about non-scientists or, more specifically, non-historians like yourself claiming to know better than genuine historians like Robert Service!

And how about your false claim that I believe "Marxism=Terrorism" when that equation is actually found not in my posts but in one of AndyTheGrump's? Should you not re-read my posts first? Justus Maximus (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Did Marx advocate terrorism?

Ludwigs, given that I've been banned from Misplaced Pages, I'm replying here to your post on the "Communist terrorism" discussion page.

You wrote:

"The term 'gay' meant 'happy and carefree' in the nineteenth century, now it means 'homosexual'"

The analogy you draw between "terrorism" and "gay" is flawed. Whilst "happy and carefree" and "homosexual" are clearly two different things, "terrorism" in the 19th century is not so different from "modern terrorism". To begin with, the core element of "action inspiring fear" remains unchanged. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore,

It is not at all necessary to show that the terrorism advocated by Marx was identical in all respects to “modern” terrorism. It more than suffices to show (1) that Marx advocated terrorism and (2) that Marx’s advocacy of terrorism inspired subsequent Marxist leaders such as the Bolsheviks.

More specifically, we may note that in their “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League” mentioned by Kolakowsky in the passage I quoted, Marx and Engels say:

“The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition … Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising … If the forces of democracy take decisive, ,terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed” (Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 5th edition 1973, pp. 244-5).

We may further note that:

(1) Lenin himself advocated the organization of revolutionary (terrorist) squads along Marxian lines, no doubt under the influence of writings like the above.

(2) Kautsky cites at least one instance of Bolshevik use of Marx quotes on terrorism to justify their own policies.

(3) Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky quotes Engels on terror in order to support his own advocacy of dictatorship and terror – as pointed out by Robert Service.

(4) Stalin annotates with approval the Marx quote from “The Victory of Counter-Revolution” in Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism - as pointed out by Radzinski..

I think it is quite clear from the above:

(1) that (as observed by Bernstein, Kautsky and the IET) Marx and Engels advocated terrorism

and

(2) that this terrorism was to be deployed as a means of achieving political ends prior to the establishment of Socialist rule (dictatorship of the proletariat).

On balance, this confirms my earlier assertion that revolutionary terrorism has two phases,

(1) pre-revolutionary phase of anti-state terrorism (prior to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat)

and

(2) post-revolutionary phase of state Terror (after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat).

It follows that, as indicated by the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, the artificial separation of anti-state terrorism and state terror/terrorism is unwarranted and illegitimate in a Marxist context as both are functions, and serve the purposes of, revolutionary violence which in turn is a manifestation of class struggle, the very essence of Marxist revolutionary ideology.

As Trotsky said: "The Red Terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection, the direct continuation of which it represents".

If the pre-revolutionary terror is not distinguishable from the post-revolutionary one in Marxist terms, then it seems unreasonable for us to distinguish between the two forms of terrorism in an article section dealing with the views of Marxist leaders on the subject.

IMO the treatment of pre- and post-revolutionary terrorism as two aspects or phases of the same phenomenon should be the framework within which an objective discussion can be conducted. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, how many times do you have to be told that Misplaced Pages in not a forum for original research? To use this argument, you'd need to find a single reliable source that argued the same thing. All of it. Misplaced Pages's standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Until you grasp this, all your arguments are irrelevant. This is how Misplaced Pages works. If you don't like it, you can (once you agree to conform to the existing rules) argue that the rules be changed. That is your right. It is not your right to ignore rules because you don't agree with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already provided sources demonstrating that Marx and others advocated terrorism. These sources should be included in an article on Communist terrorism instead of being suppressed or dismissed. The article ought to be edited by historians not by political activists like Paul Siebert and yourself. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you will go to the library of your local university (not to Borders) and open scholarly journals, you will find that most articles there are much more "pro-Marxist" (your definition) than highly politised books you are reading. The term "political activist" is more applicable to you than to your opponents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"The article ought to be edited by historians not by political activists". Well, I've no idea whether Paul is a historian or not. Come to that I've no idea how 'political activist' is defined, and whether either of us actually fit into that category. I've already stated that I don't claim to be a historian though. Are you stating that you are a historian?

And again, who you think ought to write Misplaced Pages articles is irrelevant. Subject to conforming to the required rules and standards, anyone can. If you don't like it, argue that the rules be changed, or go elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages is a private enterprise it can do as it pleases, so I can hardly "argue that the rules be changed"!

Since both Paul Siebert and yourself have admitted to not being historians, I was wondering what qualifies the likes of you to dominate and direct the discussion other than your political commitment. Besides, you clearly behave like political activists though you may not be aware of this, or (for obvious reasons) not wish to admit it. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever qualifies me to 'dominate and direct the discussion'. I can participate in it though, because I agree to conform to the Misplaced Pages rules (which are themselves largely arrived at through discussion). If you want to participate (or indeed to change the rules), you have to conform too. This is all that has ever been asked of you - and note that insinuations about others having a covert agenda isn't exactly in the spirit of Misplaced Pages standards of civility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea how 'political activist' is defined, and whether either of us actually fit into that category

If that is the case, how do you know you don't fit into it? Justus Maximus (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I take it that you have finally seen my point and that the article can now be edited accordingly without further disruptions. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages a crypto-Marxist outfit?

The blogosphere is abuzz with horror stories about any kind of projects purporting to be in the “public interest” and, make no mistake, Misplaced Pages is no exception. Still, I’ve never paid much attention to any of that until recently, when I accidentally stumbled upon this passage in a Misplaced Pages article mentioning a Marx quote that allegedly no editor had ever heard of.

It read:

“According to Marx, “There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new – revolutionary terror.”

Historian Edvard Radzinsky noted that Joseph Stalin wrote a nota bene “Terror is the quickest way to new society” beside this passage in a book by Marx.”

As I recognized the quote as being from Marx’s infamous revolutionary paper, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, I was immediately intrigued by the mysterious and strangely unprofessional words, “in a book by Marx.” I was even more intrigued by the statement of one of the editors bearing the ominous name “AndyTheGrump”, to the effect that “the supposed Marx quote is lacking a direct reference.”

I happen to be an oldfashioned sort of guy who prefers proper libraries to the internet when it comes to doing serious research on anything. I had barely ever used Misplaced Pages and had no experience whatsoever regarding its editorial procedures. Somewhat naively, perhaps, I had assumed the editors would be specialists in their respective fields. Surely, editors working on such an ambitious project as an article on Communist terrorism, would be expert historians well-versed in the writings of Marxist luminaries like … Marx himself, right? Well, no. These particular Misplaced Pages experts openly admitted they hadn’t a clue.

Grabbing a copy of Radzinsky’s Stalin, it took me just a few seconds to discover that the quote annotated by Stalin (or “Koba” as Radzinsky calls him) wasn’t actually “in a book by Marx” at all, but as Radzinsky clearly says, in Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism. A quick search in Kautsky soon confirmed the exact source: Marx’s Neue Rheinische Zeitung of 7 Nov 1848!

Little suspecting what kind of vipers’ nest I was stepping into, I decided (on 5 Oct) to clarify the situation by amending the quote to a version I felt to be more faithful to the German original, which I took from Marx and Engels, Articles from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung 1848-49, by Moscow Progress Publishers (1977), and providing all the relevant sources, complete with German-language Marx/Engels Works (Werke) plus links to German and English online versions. That was honestly all I had ever intended to do - at first. Then it occurred to me that the section kept curiously shtum on Lenin, an even greater advocate of terrorism than Marx ever was. And that was when all hell broke loose.

Not only had there been no expression of gratitude for my contribution in the first place (not that I needed any, I just found the silence rather strange), but by next day (6 Oct) I found that my version of the quote had been “amended to give the quote in full” by none other than the same editor with the ominous name (AndyTheGrump) who had been claiming all along that he had never heard of the quote!

Now, I found this rather odd, as the quote in the form given by me seemed quite adequate for the purposes of the section. In short, it showed what Marx had written about terrorism. Adding insult to injury, AndyTheGrump claimed that “the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis arguably distorted the intended meaning.” Here was someone who had admitted all along he didn’t know the quote, and now out of the blue he knew not only what the full quote was, but also, “the intended meaning”! You can imagine my bewilderment: What “intended meaning”? How did he know? Was the meaning really distorted? What was he talking about?

We all know that Marx was a journalist, right? And journalists, especially those of the politically-committed variety, just love hyperbole. So let’s learn something about the historical background to the article:

“When the National Guard tried to disperse the protesters, there were clashes, which escalated on 23 August. The Academic Legion, though refusing to join in the repression, was reluctant to side with the insurgents and stood back, a mere spectator to what followed. Lacking the support of the very people whom they regarded as their leaders, the workers stood no chance. Demonstrators were beaten with the flats of sabres, bayoneted and shot. Between 6 and 18 workers were killed, and between 36 and 152 seriously wounded (depending upon whether one believes government or radical counts). When the fighting was over, women from the more prosperous quarters of the city garlanded the National Guards’ bayonets with flowers … The Democratic Club shouted down Marx, who was then visiting Vienna, when he tried to argue that the violence was a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. For Engels, 23 August was the moment when the middle class abandoned the cause of the people: ‘thus the unity and strength of the revolutionary force was broken; the class-struggle had come in Vienna, too, to a bloody outbreak, and the counter-revolutionary camarillasaw the day approaching on which it might strike its grand blow’. But Marx found that it was not only the middle class who were deserting the revolution; there was little sympathy for his ideas even when he addressed workers’ meetings. On 7 September, he left Vienna, grumbling at the stubborn refusal of the workers to see that they should be waging a class war against the bourgeoisie” (Mike Rapport, 1848:Year of Revolution, London: Little, Brown, 2008, pp. 230-1).

Marx, who was in Vienna at the time, must have known that the number of demonstrators killed by the National Guard was between 6 and a maximum of 18. It follows that his use of unwarranted rhetorical flourishes like “massacres” and “cannibalism” was intended to deceive the readers and fraudulently incite them to armed insurrection on false pretences. It is beyond dispute that the primary intention of the article was to incite to armed insurrection, as correctly observed by the authorities who closed down Marx’s paper on that very ground.

As various sources, such as Marx’s wife Jenny, tell us, Marx had attempted earlier that year (surprise, surprise) to stir up revolution in Belgium by buying weapons for insurgents using moneys inherited from his father – for which he had been promptly arrested and marched out of the country (Jenny Marx, “Short Sketch of an Eventful Life” in Reminiscenses of Marx and Engels, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, p. 223).

So, far from “distorting” anything, the quote as given by me fulfilled its basic function of showing that Marx advocated terrorism for revolutionary purposes, period. By contrast, the “intended meaning” as insisted upon by AndyTheGrump, arguably conveyed the false impression that Marx only did so as a reaction to unspeakable “massacres” and “cannibalism” on the part of the authorities. Vienna’s radical workers were in fact a minority and even they completely ignored Marx’s call to armed uprising – which in the real, extra-Wikipedian world ought to speak for itself.

While I was still digesting all this, I was attacked by AndyTheGrump’s twin “expert” or, shall we say “faux”, historian Paul Siebert who deleted my Lenin quote from the article and claimed that not only that quote, but none of the Lenin quotes I subsequently provided had the word “terror” even when the accepted English translation (of The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky) clearly did so (see V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 28, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974, pp. 227-325) …

To cut a long story short, the article, discussion and everything else that has to do with it, has been cleverly colonized by the above “editors”, resulting in a concerted effort to suppress anything that in any way, form or shape even remotely links leading Marxists like Marx, Engels and Lenin with terrorism, and this in spite of the fact that many reliable sources expressly do so. To “experts” like AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert no source is reliable enough when it comes to anything critical of their Marxist idols. Moreover, even the idea of an article on “Communist terrorism” seems pathologically unbearable to them. Hence their obsessive demand to alternately “re-name”, “move”, “delete” the article, etc. And everyone that dares challenge or expose their agenda is presently attacked by the whole colony, from Elen of the Roads down to our esteemed, inseparable twin “editors” and “expert historians” themselves who, as should be clear by now, behave more like second-rate political agitators (that not even former Communist regimes would employ) than genuine editors, let alone historians.

I do appreciate Martin’s effort to offer advice and help. But Martin has his own reasons to ignore some very important facts, e.g., there is no rational explanation why Elen of the Roads attacks me for my perceived “crusade to expose Marx as a terrorist” whilst colluding in Paul Siebert’s own crusade to suppress all sources showing that I am right. I was given a link to an old ANI version to make me edit the wrong page, etc., etc. The attacks on me started the minute I provided the sources for the Marx quote (which clearly frustrated some editors’ agenda to dismiss it as “unverifiable”) and culminated in a ban on me when I provided solid sources showing Marx’s advocacy of terrorism in 1848 and 1850. As far as I am concerned, I’m the only one to have provided those sources and the only one to get banned. Coincidences are possible. When they become daily occurrence they become systemic and deliberate. And, no, Martin. There is NO other arbitration. If it did exist, it would involve independent historians, not political activists. So, sorry, but it’s all a scam.

Nor will I buy into Petri Krohn’s theory that Misplaced Pages is a community and that so long as everything is decided communally or communistically everything is going to be alright. No sir! As historians (and some non-historians) know, there are communities or societies that are way out of order. Evil doesn’t turn into virtue just by being generally endorsed (genocide is one example that springs to mind). Petri’s logic, assuming he actually believes in it, is the perverted logic of the politically and psychologically committed. It only serves to show the advanced stage reached by the pathology having the world of Misplaced Pages and its inmates in its grip. I may have been banned (no surprise there), but at least I’ve rattled a few cages. To have done otherwise would have amounted to deliberate collusion in this collective self-deception. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus. For your own good, seek psychiatric help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor Grumpy, you must be referring to yourself. But don't despair, there is a cure for everything. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Whereas I am prepared to take Paul Siebert’s and AndyTheGrump’s point that Misplaced Pages articles are written by amateurs, I would like to point out that when an article is so amateurish as to deny or suppress accepted historical facts it would be advisable to seek the collaboration of trained historians.

In addition, amateurs will profit from acquainting themselves with a balanced view on Marx and Engels’ life, beliefs and actions by studying biographies like those by Isaiah Berlin and Francis Wheen to avoid misinterpretations that may arise from an amateur reading of primary sources.

For example, AndyTheGrump on the Discussion page says that according to Engels’ own statements he did no more than transport ammunition boxes, “inspect all barricades and to complete fortifications”, etc., being appointed to those tasks by “the military commission”.

AndyTheGrump appears to ignore the fact that the Neue Rheinische Zeitung where Engels made those statements was a notorious revolutionary publication closely watched by the police (and that, incidentally, wasn’t as “obscure” as AndyTheGrump believes as it sold 5000 copies a day). Hence, it would be unreasonable to expect Engels to go into details of his revolutionary activities there.

Moreover, even an amateur historian like AndyTheGrump ought to investigate the matter further. If he did so, he would soon find out that Engels' superior was in fact none other than Marx and Engel’s old buddy and fellow communist revolutionary August Willich, and that Engels had become Willich’s chief adjutant, jointly directing operations and campaigns, and that, therefore, Engels’ role in the 1849 insurrection in Germany was not quite as trivial and innocent as suggested by that editor.

Moreover, Engels’ true intentions become evident from the sources:

“First Elberfeld, then Solingen fell into the hands of the democrats, who established ‘committees of safety’ to direct the insurrection. These committees tried to maintain as wide a consensus as possible, cooperating with the liberal, constitutional monarchists. When Marx’s close collaborator Friedrich Engels joined the insurgents at Elberfeld, he was soon expelled because he was accused of trying to convert the revolution from a movement of the ‘black-red-gold’ (the constitution) into a purely ‘red’ (social, republican) uprising” (Mark Rapport, 1848: Year of Revolution, 2008, p. 342).

It is evident from their writings that Marx and Engels intended to take control of insurrections once they had started (and of the revolutionary movement in general), by means of revolutionary cells expressly organized, prepared and kept ready for that purpose (see Marx and Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, June 1850, etc.).

True, all this may not amount to terrorism prima facie. However it does show that, like Marx, Engels was not a mere armchair revolutionary theorist but was quite prepared to put his theories into deadly practice. This is a very important point if we want to correctly analyze and assess the historical evidence.

In particular, this point represents a vital clue to Marx and Engels’ attitude to revolutionary terrorism which is relevant to the article. Having seen that we cannot reasonably expect Marx and Engels to have offered detailed description of their revolutionary theories and actions in publications like the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, we must turn to other relevant writings documenting what they actually thought.

In their “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League” of March 1850 distributed amongst their followers as a circular letter, Marx and Engels say:

“The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition … Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising … If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed” (Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 5th edition 1973, pp. 244-5).

Even amateur historians can see that Marx and Engels here advocate terrorism for revolutionary purposes, and this is confirmed by Bernstein, Kautsky, Kolakowski, the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism and other sources.

Whilst editors are, of course, at liberty to argue that there is no hard proof that Marx and Engels’ activities constituted terrorism sensu stricto, it is equally arguable that when a person who advocates terrorism engages in armed insurrection aiming to use terrorist acts, his activities do amount to terrorism for all practical purposes.

Whether Marx and Engels’ activities in 1848-49 did or did not constitute terrorism, it remains an indisputable fact that (a) Marx and Engels did advocate terrorism, and (b) as pointed out by Kautsky, their advocacy of terrorism (complete with original quotes) was subsequently used by later Marxists (e.g., the Bolsheviks) for their own purposes.

At any rate, it becomes evident that no objective article on Communist terrorism can be written by denying relevant historical facts, suppressing sources, or banning editors who provide them. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Attempting a final Second Chance. Please notify me if the editor returns to the methods that resulted in his/her blocking, and I will restore the indefinite block. Also, to Justus Maximus, please consider archiving this page as a courtesy to other editors. Nakon 07:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Request handled by: Nakon Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.