Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:47, 28 October 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) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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)

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)

• Requests for unblock