Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Ludvikus Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:32, 17 October 2007 editIZAK (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,873 edits AfD Nomination: The Protocols of Zion (imprints)← Previous edit Revision as of 15:32, 17 October 2007 edit undoAvraham (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators49,160 edits AfD changes: Please stopNext edit →
Line 616: Line 616:


:And please see ]. Do not refactor a discussion; you may add your own comments if you wish, but do not edit or re-order the contributions which other editors have made to the discussion. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC) :And please see ]. Do not refactor a discussion; you may add your own comments if you wish, but do not edit or re-order the contributions which other editors have made to the discussion. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

::If you have comments to add, do so in such a way that it does not appear that you are refactoring a submission to AfD. Namely, in line with everyone else. -- ~~~~

Revision as of 15:32, 17 October 2007

Skip to table of contents
Ludvikus is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ludvikus/Archive_2.
Misplaced Pages constantly getting better. --Ludvikus 22:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive:


Book Information Master Template

It's for my own use & reference --Ludvikus 12:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)):

  • 1: Title
    [[File:3: Image
    |frameless|upright=1]]4: Image caption
    Author5
    Translator2
    Illustrator6
    Cover artist7
    Language9
    Series10
    Genre11
    Publisher12
    Publication date13
    Publication place8
    Published in English14
    Media type15
    Pages16
    ISBN[[Special:BookSources/17%0A%3A |17
    ]] Parameter error in {{ISBNT}}: invalid character
    Preceded by18
     
    Followed by19
     

    The Protocols

    Hi! I've fixed navigation bar. If you'll need any help with the template you can ask me and I'll see what I can do. And thanks for the barnstar. M0RD00R 18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Napoleon was right about medals! --Ludvikus 18:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Something like that? I'm not sure it would look nice with the titles thoughM0RD00R 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    I guess the difference is that (<br />) is in XHTML and (<br>) is in HTML. I really hope that explains something to you, because it does not say a lot to me :), because I'm absolute n00b in any of those languages myself. M0RD00R 17:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


    Archived

    I've archived everything except the material above. Hope this is what you expected. If not, let me know and I will undo it. Banno 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


    Fair use rationale for Image:91e2 1.png

    Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:91e2 1.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

    If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    Public domain. Title page of book (1918). Ludvikus 22:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    Wikisource: The Protocols

    File:Rossetti Verticordia.jpg
    Your apple?

    Is this what it purports to be? --Ludvikus 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    Hi Ludvikus, I contributed to a discussion on this subject. I hope you will accept this in good faith (from a fellow new-user): there are no policies on conduct there - it is pretty well up to you to adopt the tenets of good faith. It is different to this place, I suppose you are becoming aware of that. I look forward to your contribs, here and there. Regards, Cygnis insignis 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Pleasure to hear from you! I read your comment. And now I feel I'm not talking to the wall! --Ludvikus 20:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    I endorse most of your position, I am unconcerned if you have not considered the tract older than it is. Nor am I assuming a firm positon, I want to communicate two things to you. Please heed the suggestions made by others, it will not be solved yesterday - slow down. Secondly, have you ever considered that your energy promotes the document as much anything? Regards, Cygnis insignis 20:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    I'd like to hear some more from you. I'm aware of what happened in 1903, 1905, 1906, ..., 1920, ..., but am unaware of what you meant by Ancient Times (I'm paraphrasing you). Could you explain? Peace, --Ludvikus 14:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    I moved the comment here, source is a library. It shares a common theme with other libraries; if you talk too much, a very stern looking person will come and say one word. Or point to a sign with that word displayed - with an exclamation point! Am I being too obtuse, am I beating around the bush - well, yes. I want you to happen on the answer yerself ... As for forgery scholarship, I'm not going to add energy to that. Your misquote (paraphrasing), is a reference to several documents to emerge in europe, prior to the revolution. If you want the information that will show the document you are serving is an feeble adaptation of this, I can forward the scans of the literature. I estimate this will be around $45 US dollars in my costs, no charge for my labour. Alternatively you can go and look it up at a library. Don't forget to note the tranquil atmosphere, and the effect your persistent questioning has on the people there. Cygnis insignis 18:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

    Morning Post

    Talk page apparently got lost during the moves. Currently it is here . Now administrator needs to delete current talk page to make a room for a move. M0RD00R 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

    WP:CIVIL

    OK. But why hide behind your new pseudonym? You are misleading others into believing that there are more than one editor who subscribes to your position! --Ludvikus 22:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    Who's hiding? My signature is linked to my user pages. I've been using that signature for years now and I don't feel any obligation to change just because some people don't understand the mechanics of Misplaced Pages. I have considered changing my username to my signature, but it is too inconvenient to type the ≠ symbol. I think most editors don't have a problem figuring out the connection between signatures and usernames. olderwiser 23:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    Too bad you didn't respond to any of my queries earlier - it might have ended or avoided much misunderstanding. Ludvikus 02:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    What queries are you referring to? I responded several times to the talk page. olderwiser 02:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    You responded only after the Page was Blocked/Locked from being Moved!--Ludvikus 03:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    Umm, no. That is not at all the case. Please compare the revision history of both pages. I've presented a simplified timeline on my talk page. olderwiser 03:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

    Your recent edits

    --SineBot 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Inadvertent error, slip of the fingers. Ludvikus 02:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC) -->
    

    License tagging for Image:3 The Cause of World Unrest (New York - 1920).jpg

    The Jewish Bolshevism

    Please write a separate article about the pamphlet The Jewish Bolshevism and never again do such page moves. `'Míkka 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

    Original research is not allowed on Misplaced Pages.

    WP:AN/3RR

    Hello. I noticed that you added this report to WP:AN/3RR. Now, I understand why you placed that there, but that isn't quite the proper page. I'm actually not sure exactly where to put it, but my best guess would be on WP:AN/I, the Administrator's noticeboard for Incidents in general. Regards, You Can't See Me! 05:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

    International Jew

    Amazing article, thanks! Someone (non-identified dipper-in) has removed your sentence about Lacey's comment. If instead of saying 'it is probably true that...' you simply wrote 'Lacey states...' then no-one could argue with the statement or its suitability for WP. However I can't see at a glance who Lacey is, and that statement would want a footnote. All the best, Sedgefoot 06:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

    I don't know what you're talking about!!! And who is Lacey? --Ludvikus 12:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know who Lacey is either, that's what I'm saying. Who does? I was just browsing this interesting article you'd been working on and noticed when I made this post to you that an IP number editing had removed a significant sentence from it. I wondered if it was because no-one had referenced Lacey. So I thought I'd better give you the tip-off that Lacey had taken a run-out powder, so to speak, and his quotation with him. I was intrigued by the article and trying to help. Best wishes, Sedgefoot 22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    Now I know what you were both talking about! It's this :
        CULTURAL DESK
        BOOKS OF THE TIMES
        By WALTER GOODMAN
        FORD: The Men and the Machine. By Robert Lacey. Illustrated. 778 pages. Little, Brown. $24.95.
        FORD is a workmanlike assemblage by an English writer of a great American family saga.
        Robert Lacey carries us briskly through almost a century of corporate fortunes
        (Model A, Model T, Mustang) and misfortunes (Edsel, Pinto).
        He makes admirably clear the technical and marketing considerations
        that have gone into each new or revised model
        and provides plenty of opportunity along the way to view the ...
        July 9, 1986
    
    Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

    Stop. Now.

    1. Stop moving articles without consensus
    2. The next time you suggest another user is a Jew-hater, you will be blocked for personal attacks.

    That is all. --jpgordon 15:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

    I do not, and would not, call another another user a Jew-hater on Misplaced Pages. However, I am not responsible for the "suggestions" that come out of the use of antisemitic expressions. --Ludvikus 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Don't bother answering both places. As I already said elsewhere: Yes, you are exactly responsible for those "suggestions", and the next one will be your last. --jpgordon 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    For a Wikipedian who says that we are responsible for our "suggestions" why do you suggest a threat above? Are you trying to scare me? What do you suggest by "the next one will be your last"? You and I know each other as Wikipedians. I am completely surprised by your use of such an uncivil expression. It clearly suggests a threat. Do you not see that? And it is provocative and inflammitory. It is not the way for one to get someone to conform to Misplaced Pages rules. And I am especially surprised that it comes from you, whom I recognize as a Wikipedian for some time back. Please clarify yourself. Are you trying to scare me with that suggested threat of yours? --Ludvikus 15:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Scare you? I guess so; if fear of being blocked will stop you from making personal attacks, then that's what I'm intending. But perhaps appealing to your desires will work better: If you desire to continue editing Misplaced Pages, you need to stop suggesting anti-semitism on the part of those who you are having edit disagreements with. --jpgordon 16:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

    Clean up & fine tuning

    I have only started. Maybe I can put some more time in tomorrow. Thanks for the recognition. --Kevin Murray 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    I would like you to try to delete the Original research on it. I maintain that Misplaced Pages requires that we state what scholars said - it's not a place where Wikipedians should speculate "Why so many Jews were Bolsheviks." Thanks. --Ludvikus 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    I don't see the antisemitism in the article.

    I have this feeling that you see the term Bolsheviks as being pejorative. Is that the case ? I am a secular Jew and have no more problem with being referred to as a Bolshevik or a communist even though that is not how I would describe myself. Do you have the same problem with the moniker Jewish philosophers or Jewish celebrities. ? Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 07:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    You're completely mistaken. The fact is that Jewish Bolshevism is an Antisemitic expression, and historicall speaking, it was used so exclusively; it has no Marxist, Communist, or Bolshevik meaning whatsoever. Do you not know that? --Ludvikus 10:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    No, that is a new one on me. But I intend to do a bit of wiki and google research on it. I want to know how widespread that view is. I do know that a lot of Jews hate anything remotely similar to Marxism, especially Stalinism . Albion moonlight 23:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Danny Weintraub. : Albion moonlight 06:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    You mean: "One Jew is to many"? Are you really Jewish? Would you have liked to work as Stalin's assistant? Do you like the cold - would you mind living in Siberia? How many Englishman are Stalinists, any why? Do Frenchman love Stalin? Are these questions important? --Ludvikus 12:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Yes I really am Jewish but your implication seems to be that you believe your assertions about Jewish Bolshevism being is common knowledge. I do not believe that it is common knowledge. If you believe that it is perhaps you should create a request for comment on the articles talk page. I think that once you realize that it isn't common knowledge even amongst Jews you may change your mind and realize that you may be pushing a Pov.

    If you referred to the other editors as being antisemitic you are guilty of making a personal attack on other Wikipedians and should apologize. If you did not make such an accusation then you may have a legitimate complaint. If you moved an article without consensus then you broke a rule. I have done nothing to deserve your ire. I hope you manage to work things out with Jpgordan. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    re. Troll

    The thing is, an internet troll on wikipedia is just an internet troll on wikipedia. We don't need a Troll (Misplaced Pages) article. The header text about wikipedia trolls should be more than sufficient. Apologies if I came across as impolite- you may find that a bit of politeness/smarminess can come in handy to get around stubborn people when editors who are particularly idealistic about wikipedia get dragged in. Not that I've actually learnt that lesson by now. Nimmo 11:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    I've just been wading my way through policy pages, and I can't find anything explictly stating what I believe I've seen a number of times in admin descisions, which is that self-referential pages talking about Misplaced Pages are heavily discouraged. If you feel that there needs to be more information on wikipedia trolls, a link on the internet troll page to WP:TROLL might be the best option, if you're willing to defend it. Apologies for the talk page mess, hope you have a good day. Nimmo 12:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    Ah yeah, that was a bit of vandalism on the part of my mates while they were a bit pissed that I mirrored to my userpage. Could look a bit suspect. Have noticed that merge discussion before, probably will take another look later. Nimmo 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    Protocols

    I'm trying to sort them out of the generic Category:Book stubs category, and since they were used as political propaganda I sorted them to Category:Political book stubs. Any suggestions as to where they should go? History books? Thanks - Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    The problem is that a stub type for antisemitica is not viable. The permanent categories should suffice for that. Would these go under history, or perhaps just non-fiction? Why wouldn't they be political? Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    Cannot answer now. Will be back in a few hows. In the meantime, consider Controversial literature. Cheers, --Ludvikus 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    I understand that these works fall into the category of controversial literature. What I don't know is which of these stub categories would be more appropriate than Category:Political book stubs:

    Category:Visual art book stubs
    Category:Biography book stubs
    Category:Crime book stubs
    Category:Economics and finance book stubs
    Category:Essay stubs
    Category:History book stubs
    Category:Music publication stubs
    Category:Philosophy book stubs
    Category:Reference book stubs
    Category:Religious studies book stubs
    Category:Science book stubs
    Category:Travel book stubs
    Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    Good. Thanks. But none of the above satisfy our need. So I've made a recommendation at the Book categories Talk page here . Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages on Proposing new stubs

    The following is for my reference. --Ludvikus 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC) ---

    Proposing new stubs - procedure

    Proposing new stubs
    If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow the following procedure:
    1. Check at Category:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist.
    2. List it at the top of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~).
      • Please mind that a stub-category isn't about importance or notability of the topic
    3. Find a good number of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that tag. Each of these articles can be:
      • currently be marked with stub;
      • currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one);
      • a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable;
      • not marked as a stub.
    4. Others will do the same, if they feel like it.
    5. 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and template following the format on Misplaced Pages:Stub. If consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing, the proposal will remain open until consensus can be reached. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section.

    . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if associated with a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case.

    DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which is already being discussed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries or Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion. The proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and it is better to keep any discussion of such stub types in one place rather than splitting it between diffferent pages.

    Controversy

    I fear you are getting categories and templates mixed up. Category:Controversial literature should be for any article about a controversial book whether the article be a stub or not. Template:Controversial literature-stub could be created to mark stub articles and to place them into Category:Controversial literature. An article entitled Categories:Controversial literature was a meaningless namespace violation. In case you wanted its text, I have buried it in the history of your sandbox. -- RHaworth 02:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    AfD nomination of Notable or notorious antisemites

    Notable or notorious antisemites, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Notable or notorious antisemites satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Notable or notorious antisemites and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Notable or notorious antisemites during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. iridescent (talk to me!) 13:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    I've got no opinion on whether this list should exist - I've nominated it purely procedurally to get a consensus before you start expanding it, as - while it's certainly a potentially valid list - there's also potential for it to become a permanent edit-war battleground, and I'd like to get a broader consensus before you - or anyone else - start adding names to it.iridescent (talk to me!) 13:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    I think you are mistaken. Antisemites generally would be proud to be listed on such an honor role. Ludvikus 14:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    I've replied more fully on the AfD discussion so others can see it - the problem's not with the people who undoubtedly would be included, but with the permanent "George Bush once joined a golf club that didn't allow Jews, that makes him an antisemite" POV edit warring that's likely to stem from itiridescent (talk to me!) 14:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Even if that qualification regarding an incident you describe would be deemed as antisemitic, no one in their right mind would say that "George Bush was a notable antisemite," or that he was a "notorious one." Substantial antisemitic conduct is the intent of the qualification. A "hymie" remark (you know who I mean) is insufficient to qualify someone as notable or notorious on the issue. --Ludvikus 14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    I know that & you know that, but you & I have both been around Misplaced Pages long enough to know that plenty of people don't - see the history of pages like List of convicted Australian criminals or List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (and its subpages) for exampleiridescent (talk to me!) 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    These are not areas of a particular interest to me. However, I appreciate that homosexuals get abused, and convicts often suffer undeservedly. But are we goung to give in to the irrational? As encyclopedists we have an obligation to the truth. You are not yet making any headway with me with your suggestions, or implications, that we exercise self-censorships because we're going to be unable to defend ourselves against all the idiots in the world. Best to you, Ludvikus 15:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Conversion to Category

    You might want to run it past User:BrownHairedGirl - in my experience, she's generally the best judge of whether a category or list is likely to be viable or be deleted, and what changes if any need to be made. As Category:Antisemites has already been deleted, you may get opposition in recreating it. (Incidentally, while I currently live in London, I'm not a "fine British chap" but an expat New York Jew.)iridescent (talk to me!) 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Well than, if you tell me your age, I'll tell you if you qualify for membership in an organization I'm thinking of forming. It will be called the Elders of Zion - antisemites maybe gave us a good idea which we may have overlooked. Do you think we could create such an entity? It's aim, of course, would be world domination.
    More to the point, I think I'll surprise you with the following Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Here's the recent Category creation:

      Category:Notable or notorious antisemites
      
      Jump to: navigation, search
      Listed here are individuals who played some notable role, or a notorious one, in history, literature, or publication.
      Please note that mere incident(s) involving some apparent antisemitic conduct or speach is insufficient to qualify
      the inclusion of a person on this list. Please be very careful in your selections. Remember also that this is not
      a place to make your own personal judgments. Neither should it be a place or space to libel or slander a living person
      with whose views you strongly disagree. Nor is it a place to list someone who exercised poor judgment in the choice
      of words on a particular occasion.
      Pages in category "Notable or notorious antisemites"
      There are 10 pages in this section of this category. 
      A
      Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich
      B
      Boris Brasol
      F
      Henry Ford
      G
      G. Butmi
      H
      Reinhard Heydrich
      Heinrich Himmler
      Adolf Hitler
      L
      L. Fry
      P
      Pavel Krushevan
      W
      Nesta Helen Webster
      Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Notable_or_notorious_antisemites"
      Category: Antisemitism
    

    Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Maybe renaming to Ideologists of antisemitism should be considered so that the story of deleted category "Antisemitic people" will not repeat again? Creating list article also is a reasonable option I think M0RD00R 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    As a matter of fact there was a confusion as to a Category, or an Artcle. I wanted the former, and it exists now. The Former generates a List automatically. So all's well now. --Ludvikus 17:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Just click on this Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. --Ludvikus 17:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    I know that category creates a list but the problem is it will not take long before someone nominates this category for deletion, I'm afraid. Similar category was already deleted once. And having word "notorious" in the title will not help. This is why I suggest changing the name to Ideologists of antisemitism for instance. M0RD00R 17:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    The deletion of your new category is already being discussed. Don't remove the deletion notice from the category itself - the notice does not need to be signed, and removing it won't stop the discussion. Computer not responding 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    Observation noted. Error already corrected previously (prior to your message). Thank you anyway. Cheers, --Ludvikus 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    Fair use rationale for Image:425px-Naciones_Unidas_3_repaired_and.png.png

    Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:425px-Naciones_Unidas_3_repaired_and.png.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 11:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


    Check again. I only touched up the UN (WW II) image (it was damaged). I think it's pre-1923. But somebody else found it before me. So do your research further please. --Ludvikus 11:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    Re:Category:Notable or notorious antisemites

    As I said, the category should be deleted or renamed. Category:Antisemites would be useful, but which we should have no articles on unnotable antisemties - thus there is no need for 'notable (or notorious) antisemites' category. PS. We have Category:Murderers - but not Category:Notable or notorious murderers. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, but we also have manslaughter, which is not as bad. We need to distinuish between a "hymie" remark, and the work of Adolf Hitler. Without the distinction(s) the vother Wikipedians will have it deleted!! --Ludvikus 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    I agree - "Murderers" has a clear criteria for inclusion (conviction in the courts), while (aside from a very few cases) the difference between "undisputed antisemite", "someone who said something stupid when drunk" and "someone expressing a common cultural prejudice for their time that would be unacceptable today" is a pure value judgement, so in this case the criteria does need to be limited to people who are famous for anitsemitism.iridescent (talk to me!) 16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    Great. We agree. So way don't you place your vote to Keep here ? --Ludvikus 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    If you want to reply to me, please copy your msg to my page, I almost never check other user pages for messages for me. I am not sure I understand your point. There are notable antisemites that belong to Misplaced Pages and sad unnotable individuals who don't. We don't call the notable notable in categories since we would have to insert it everywhere.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    Removal of nominations for deletion is considered vandalism. Please don't do that again. And nominations for deletion are never signed on the article page. If you had gone to the CfD page, you would have seen my signature, and that my nomination was not capricious. Corvus cornix 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    I didn't "remove" anything. I don't know what your talking about! --Ludvikus 17:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    This removal. Corvus cornix 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    Listen, Asshole, it was a mistake on my part for which I've apologized to you on your Talk page. Where have you been - on the Moon? Instead of wasting time on this shit, why don't you pay attention to the discussion there, at the Deletion proposal cite? Furthermore, my mistake was corrected a while ago - probably when you were asleep. --Ludvikus 17:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    Listen, Ludvikus, I hadn't read your comments on my Talk page. I will apologize for the above if you will do the same. Corvus cornix 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    OK. Peace! We all make a mistake. But admitting it takes baXXs , if you know what I mean. --Ludvikus
    And I apologize for not having read your post on my Talk page before posting the above. Corvus cornix 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    Move

    Since both pages have a history, other than being a redirect of each other, the move can only be done by an administrator. The naming of the template is not a huge issue, though, as it's not usually user visible, and thus I think, for the sake of simplicity, having the name without quotes, is probably the better way to go. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    If you had not edited the original page after you had moved it to the page with one quote, I would have been able to move it back, but at this point you need to ask for administrator help, possibly at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. The Template, while related to the book, is about a whole bunch of ideas (since it is included in many pages) and thus does not need the quotes for simplicity. A very small minority of people will see the title of the template, so just keep it simple and ask to have it moved to the page with no quotes. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    Protocols template etc.

    *Template:"The Protocols" Needs fixing. I did a Cut & Paste (sorry) & lost the History. Essentially it was all a matter of Quotes. Please restore the lost "History" --Ludvikus 15:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    Anthony Appleyard 09:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


    Check out: Template:"The Protocols (notice that there's only an opening quote.). Thanks. --Ludvikus 09:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

    Proper Canvassing for Category:Notable or notorious antisemites

    from User talk:Wedineinheck‎

    Why don't you put your vote in support of this Category? Vote Keep so it won't get deleted. Thanks, --Ludvikus 00:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Please consider Misplaced Pages's rules on canvassing. Deletion discussions are not polls, so votestacking is a disservice to your cause, especially if it is determined you are canvassing to influence the results. / edg 00:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    I was not aware of any such Wiki prohibition. I'm going to research that right now. Thanks. --Ludvikus 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    OK. I've read the rule. You're mistaken in it's application to me. I've contact that One editor who has actually Used this Category. Accordingly, unless he knows that it's up for Deletion, his use of it is meaningless. So you are mistaken. --Ludvikus 01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    I've also just placed the proper notice on the Deletion discussion page. --Ludvikus 01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Rule against canvassing?

    Had no idea that existed. If so, I stand corrected. Thank you. --Ludvikus 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Exception(s) to the rule

    I've checked the Rule. It seems that you're mistaken in its application to me. It is not an Absolute rule. In fact, it's very clear that there are circumstances in which canvassing is proper, and good for Misplaced Pages. Please reconsider you're observation. --Ludvikus 01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Please note carefully the exceptions to the general rule - and examine more precisely what you believe I did wrong. Thereafter I expect you to get back to me with an appropriate Wikipedian response. Thank you, --Ludvikus 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)a
    I'm familiar with these rules, and telling an editor how to vote in a deletion discussion is fairly blatant canvassing. The category does not seem to be created by Wedineinheck. What exception do you claim? / edg 01:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Nonesense. He's using the Category. You are being Pedantic. We are not in front of a USA voting booth. The guy is a User of the Category. He clearly believes in it. So you are playing with formalities. I'm not Telling him how to Vote. I'm telling him that he will not be able to Classify his characters under that Antisemitic Category unless he Votes Not to Delete. Cann't you see the point. The guy is already Converted User of the System. So are you going to Split Hairs with me? You are simply Wrong, and I hope you can admit it.
    And if you insist on splitting hairs - look carefully at the word "multiple". Contacting One Editor is not Multiple. Or what do you think? One editor is the same as Multiple editors? --Ludvikus 01:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Soliciting a vote from someone known in advance to favor a certain outcome is blatantly votestacking. I'm not really interested in arguing this. I just wanted you to be aware that you may be crossing a line. / edg 01:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for your opinion. And after carefully studying your view, I've come to the conclusion that I've done the right thing. And for the record, here's the first part of the Wiki rule your concerned with (showing the footnotes):
        ''']''' is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence
         a community discussion.
         <ref>Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to
         automatically append some promotional message to every signed post.</ref>
         Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written
         to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and
         are generally considered disruptive.
         This guideline explains how to notify editors without engaging in disruptive canvassing.
         <ref>On at least one occasion, a provocative attempt to stack an ongoing poll by cross-posting has contributed towards
         an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in probation and eventual banning by the community.
         An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine.
         Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved.
         If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are
         contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article."
         See ].</ref>
    
    Third opinion: WP:CANVASSING states

    A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions. Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who voted in a previous AfD on a given subject) may be acceptable.

    Therefore, Ludvikus did not break the rule in its literal sense, but, as a general rule of "Wikiquette" telling a user to vote a certain was in a discussion is frowned upon. To explain further, the message was only placed on one user's talk page, so it is not canvassing (at least described word-for-word in the canvassing policy), but it is something that is generally looked upon with differing degrees of dislike. Had Ludvikus placed the message on multiple users' talk pages, then it would be a clear violation. As it stands, however, while Ludvikus did not violate the policy, I suggest that they refrain from posting messages like that on talk pages. Hope that's clear enough, and happy editing, ( arky ) 02:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you. I appreciate the Rationality that Misplaced Pages is producing. First of all, I had no idea of the existence of this rule. And I'm glad to have learned of it this early. The principle I operate under is Fairness - which is at the basis of all systems reflecting any degree of Justice.
    Now back to my point. I think it is consistent with the Canvassing rule at Misplaced Pages for me to contact any editor who is now actively using the Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. And that telling such an editor to Vote to Keep is certainly not Disruptive. It is absurd to think that by so saying I'm influencing that editor. Such an editor obviously believes in the legitimacy of the Category - otherwise why is (s)he using it? --Ludvikus 02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, it is perfectly OK for me to go to the Talk page and Solicit Votes - to Vote to Keep the Category - or does anyone advise me not to do so? If not, why not? --Ludvikus 02:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    While it is not disallowed by the policy to do this to one editor, it certainly is not allowed for you to do this to multiple editors. As for soliciting votes, something like "X was nominated for deletion. Your comments in the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, ~~~~" is perfectly acceptable to post on multiple pages, but asking for a specific vote is not. Cheers, ( arky ) 02:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Finally it sounds like I've reached a Wikipedian Judge (in Real Life)! The people I wish to Canvass (probably precisely because I've been reprimanded) are the Users of the Category: Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. What I'm saying is that to tell them to Vote not to delete is simply preacing to the converted. Every editor I would Canvass would be an editor who's actively using the Category. He's/She's clearly a believer in its desirability. Therefore initiating such contacts would Not constitute Disruptive behavior. And so I should be permitted to engage in such Canvassing. Do you understand my point? I would not be contacting any neutral, or opposed, editors! So there's no disruption whatsoever. I would simply be informing editors who use the Category at present that they would not be able to use it unless they Vote to Keep. The point is obvious to me. But have I made it clear to others? --Ludvikus 02:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    It seems that Fate has conspired to prevent me from being able to contact any more Wikipedians than one: User:Wedineinheck! There is no other User (besides myself) whose actively classifying bio articles under this Category. So I cannot violate the rule - requiring Multiple user contacts - even if I wanted to. --Ludvikus 02:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    I completely understand your point. I think it is absolutely wonderful that you are informing users that a category they use may be deleted, and I can see eye to eye with you perfectly on the fact that they should be told that one of the categories they use might be no more. However, the canvassing policy states that you cannot post messages on talk pages that say specifically to vote one way or another. It doesn't say, though, that you can't inform them of the discussion. If you are saying this to users who use the category without telling them they should vote one way or another, they will probably vote to keep the category anyway, as they use it. Thus, you can effectively not violate the canvassing policy, and still get editors who use the category to participate in the discussion. Hope that makes sense :) ( arky ) 02:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    And, just to clarify, you did not violate any policy :) ( arky ) 02:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you. And it's good not to be talking to the wall for a change. On the other hand, is one of us (just) a brilliant computer simulating human behavior? Best to you, and Peace! --Ludvikus 02:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    All the best :) ( arky ) 03:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    *:::It may be considered disruptive to the deletion discussion and you may be blocked to permit that discussion to continue without disruption. -- Jreferee t/c 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Edgarde posted this message. --Ludvikus 02:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to this post, soliciting !votes to Keep the Category on editor talk pages may be considered disruptive to the deletion discussion. Anyone who disrupts a deletion discussion may be blocked to permit that discussion to continue without disruption. -- Jreferee t/c 04:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

    Russian

    Unfortunately, I don't know Russian; I know Polish. You may want to ask, for example, User:Irpen, for help.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you. I believed you knew Polish. So I hoped you also knew Russian, because Poland was under Soviet control in the last half of the previous century. --Ludvikus 16:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, I don't. See my Babel template on my userpage for full list of languages I know.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


    Ghetto benches

    Hi! Would you be interested in DYK debate on Ghetto benches. Apparently there are some users doubting racial nature of this discriminatory act. What's your opinion? Cheers. M0RD00R 17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Please hold your horses. The article on such delicate subject has to remain narrowly focused. Nothing prevents you from creating wider topic review articles but this article is devoted to a specific aspect of Polish antisemitism. Don't throw everything that comes to mind to Wikiepdia articles at random. --Irpen 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    And stop undiscussed and unproposed moves NOW! --Irpen 19:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    What f***ing Moves are you talking about? There is nothing Moving now! --Ludvikus

    I mean these. --Irpen 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    • There are no moves taking place now (you're talking about ancient history by Wiki time).
    • Misplaced Pages encourages Boldness - especially in the face of obvious error.
    • Whatever Moves I did, they were accepted, and things are stable now.
    • So stop waisting time being an un-necessary Wiki Policeman; your time would be better spent concentrating on sloppy work at best concerning the subject of Polish antisemitism.

    Boldness is good when editing but by far less in moving. And even when editing Be bold but don't be reckless. Also, please be polite and concentrate on building a good encyclopedia overall, not trying to find every chance to insert issues closest to your heart left and right. Antisemitism is a horrible phenomenon, it needs to be covered but it needs to be covered properly. If you overpush, you undermine the credibility of this coverage in the eyes of the readers. --Irpen 19:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you. You appear sincere. But the problem with Jews was that they were Not pushy enough. Do not confuse my pasionate discussed at the antisemitic undertones of some of the articles I edit or attempt to cleanup, with the Cold Logic of which I believe I'm capable of. It was another editor who informed me of the horrible state of this article. And I find that it has already improved (in my eyes of course) since I was made aware of its existence. Right now I'm mostly concerned with the following: Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. It appears Wikipedians are more concerned that poor, unfortunate, victims will be inproperly, subjectively, or wrongly, classified as antisemites. --Ludvikus 20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Although I disagree with current title, personally I am a fan of WP:UE I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to discuss it later. I don't mind even RfM. But there are some more serious issues to discuss now in and around this article such as a denial of racial nature of this act, attempts to portray it as a clash between Polish and Jewish extremist organizations (sic!), there all parts are equally to blame and so on. Of cause it is not easy not to loose temper in the face of such a blatant distortions of historical facts, but simply there is no other way than to stay calm and concentrated on important things. Let's have a quality time discussing what really matters. Cheers. M0RD00R 20:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Ghetto benches again

    Quite to the contrary. Term Ghetto benches is used in English. Just click on this link . How about continuing this discussion on the article talk page. Cheers. M0RD00R 20:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Ethnic slurr

    Nur für Deutsche was not an ethnic slur. Neither is getto ławkowe.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    I'll get to that later. I understand that the possessive of "Ghetto" is "Ghetta." So shouldn't we have "Ghetta lawka"? --Ludvikus 20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    No. Ghetta is a plural. Singular: ghetto ławkowe. Plural: ghetta ławkowe. Translation: bench ghetto(s).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    The term is used, see . It could also be translated as 'ghetto of benches', I guess.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    I am unfamiliar with the concept of little ghetto or mini ghetto; perhaps you should create an article on this topic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Most accurate translation of the meaning of this term would be "Ghetto in the auditorium". M0RD00R 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    User:Piotus gave us the clue, I think. The 18 google hits show the use of scare quotes, like so: "bench ghetto" (or was it ghetto bench?).

    Personally I would go with "bench ghetto", but the fact is that in academic sources mostly term "ghetto benches" is used. The usage of "ghetto benches" outnumbers "bench ghetto" by 10:1 ratio according to google books. M0RD00R 21:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    You're right, MORDOOR! I got 247 Google hits. You do the rest of the work. I'm going out (it's Sunday). --Ludvikus 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Speedy deletion of Robert H. McNeal

    A tag has been placed on Robert H. McNeal, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages per CSD A1.

    Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

    If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Shawnpoo 20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

    Stub - developed. --Ludvikus 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

    Re: Alleged disruption message posted on my Talk page

    You seem to think that a message was left here that wasmeant for me. And you seem to have posted it on my page. I have no idea what your talking about - and I wish you had not done that. You should contact the person who sent it and tell them that they have made a mistake. --Ludvikus 02:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

    It was clearly meant for you — examine the diff. Since Jreferee is answering a question for which you solicited an answer, I thought it would be polite to pass it along. Sorry if this causes problems — in the future I won't bother. / edg 02:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    It was reckless of you to simply post an apparent editors threat to Block a user without the appropriate precaution that it be noticed by the parties involved. You should not have done that Cut & Paste. Since I'm not an inexperienced User, I was easily able to find out what has been done. But such reckless action could cause problems for another. Why didn't you simply tell the two parties what had happened? What you did is improperly fix an administrators un-sent apparent notice. Do you understand what I'm trying to explain to you? --Ludvikus 03:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    I assumed you would understand. You have my apologies. / edg 03:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    Apologies are not necessary, if your intent was to do good, which I now think it was. However, do you understand my point about the problems that could result? --Ludvikus 03:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

    Subcategories

    Subcategories are actually categories in syntax, just called 'sub'. So it would be Category:Antisemites.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

    Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bookintnatjewhankford01.jpg)

    Thanks for uploading Image:Bookintnatjewhankford01.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

    If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    Public domain - 1921 imprint. --Ludvikus 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    Not Public Domain. It will be in public domain in 2017. Please read the rules carefully about tags you are placing. the appropriate tag is {{book cover}}. PLease go to Image:Bookintnatjewhankford01.jpg and add fair use rationale as requested by the rules. Please notice carefully the restrictions where this image may be used in wikipedia. `'Míkka 04:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    Nonsense! It's a 1921 imprint of a Title page. You do not seem to know the difference between that and a Book cover. And How your Arithmetic produced 2017 as the Copyright expiration date is a real mystery! It surely is not by Polish logic, which had attained a very high level of development by the time of the Second World War. --Ludvikus 06:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    This is your last warning: stop your insults or you will be blocked from editing. You are creating an unbearable atmosphere. Now back to the issue: public domain in the United States is counted 70 years after the death of the author. Henry Ford died in 1947. 1947+70=2017. Yes, I missed the point that it is not the book cover (BTW, you yorself wrote it is "book cover"). Please ask experts in Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content. `'Míkka 06:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    I disagree with Mikka here. Copyright for the books is held by the publisher not the author like for, say, painting and the clock starts ticking from the date of publication, not from the date of author's death. That said, Ludvikus, unless you change your demeanor, you will get blocked. --Irpen 06:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    Irpen. It is not helpful to threaten me with being blocked by demanding that I change my demeaner. If there is something you do not like which I wrote, you should tell me exactly what it is - otherwise I have no idea what you find offensive; I find the writing on Jewish Bolshevism extremely offensive, and I would like you guys to change your demeanor in regard to that. Do you know what I want you to do by that? I imagine your answer is "No." --Ludvikus 06:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    I "do not like" your combative style of editing and aggressive talk page posts. This should stop. --Irpen 06:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    There is no rule in Misplaced Pages - that I know of - prohibiting "combative style of editing" or "aggressive talk page posts." Also, these terms of yours are POV interpretations. Again, I ask you to be more precise about exactly what it is that you do not like which I wrote - and next show me how I violated any Misplaced Pages rule? I do not think you could do that - simply because nothing of the kind exists. --Ludvikus 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    Jewish bolshevism

    Please don't write the same or similar text in two different articles.This is against wikipedia rules. Please confine The Jewish Bolshevism to the pamphlet and Jewish Bolshevism to generan discussion of the term. `'Míkka 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    As for quoting :Lacqueur, the second quote is sufficient to desribe the whole point. `'Míkka 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    Nominating AfD

    Hi, see WP:AfD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion if you want to nominate an article for deletion.

    I have fixed your nomination, please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chinese in Russian Revolution. Carlosguitar 08:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    AfD nomination of Sultan Catto

    An article that you have been involved in editing, Sultan Catto, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sultan Catto. Thank you. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    Your complaint has been noted

    You wrote:

    You've recently classified various imprints of the above as "religious book stubs"; that's a mistake; this stuff consists of various imprints, under different titles, which is/are in fact instances of plagiarism, forgery, and a hoax.

    The fact that they are hoaxes does not change the fact that they were written as a political and religious attack against the Jews, thus making either of these classifications correct. Since we do not have a "hoax book stub", "plagiarism book stub" or "forgery book stub", I sorted it according to what we do have.

    You wrote:

    I think you should go back to Protocols of the Elders of Zion and re-classify all those articles you've turned into "religious books" into at least "controversial literature." Ludvikus 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    I did not turn the articles into anything. They are still in the controversial literature category, which is a parent category for Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which contains the articles (as well as the myriad other redundant categories the articles occupied). Fortunately, I don't care what happens to the categorization of the articles, as long as users can find them efficiently, which is what categorizing is for. I think that if it is important to you, you should revert the edits, rather than lecturing me.

    You wrote:

    Thank you for you "gentle message." However, you should classify texts which scholars have identified as plagiarisms, frauds, and hoaxes. No one in their right mind (except victims of antisemitism) take any imprint of "The Protocols", under whatever title, as either a political, or a religious, book. Ludvikus 01:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    As a scholar myself, I am in my right mind, and I resent the implication that no one but you really knows what the Protocols are about, or how to edit Misplaced Pages articles. If you cannot abide any changes to articles you have edited, then you are in the wrong place and should start your own website. Regards, Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    I was not writing about you, and it's unfortunate that you take the observation personally. The subject of discourse is/are the so-called Protocols of Zion. If you deduce that you are not in your right mind because it is you who thinks these Protocols are religious texts - than that is your own problem, not mine. --Ludvikus 04:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    Hmm, you said: "No one in their right mind (except victims of antisemitism) take any imprint of "The Protocols", under whatever title, as either a political, or a religious, book." I did categorize it as both. Thus, you are the one implying I am not in my right mind, and I am the one refuting it. I reserve the right to respond to insults to my intelligence, implied or explicit. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • First of all, it is not a matter of intelligence. It is a matter of hatred, bigotry, vileness, wickedness, antisemtism, racism, and Evil. Anyone who believes that the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a political, or a religious, text falls under all of these categories. Now you tell me, what do you think? --Ludvikus 04:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not interested in your own, personal, private views. You should look up the difference between general statement and particular statement. As I told you before, the subject of discourse is "The Protocols". As a Wikipedian we are both expected to assume good faith on each others part. But if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen; whatever your private beliefs are is your affair - that does not, however, entitle you to censor me in describing the nature of the readership or audience of the Protocols of Zion. Cheers, --Ludvikus 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    Protocols of the Elders of Zion

    Please state the articles and the modifications to which you refer. I am unable to find the changes that you are talking about. 07:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    I do not respond to unsigned queries. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    Star of David

    Hi, there was vandalism before your contribution (), which you did not revert. I did notice your contributions (, ) when I was reverting the vandalism to the article and I did paste in the sentence you added (). I believe the anon who edited the article after you has fixed everything ().

    Best, Akriasas 22:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    Ah, I see that I put the sentence in the wrong position (and the anon did as well). I'll fix this presently. Akriasas 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    Re:Polish notation vs. Prefix notation

    Thank you for the interest. As I don't know anything about the subject, I'll abstain - my vote in favor of Poland would be not very neutral here, I am afraid :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Chinese in Russian Revolution

    I take it your objection can be summed up as: you are objecting to having any of the poster, on the grounds that it is not only offensive, but also inaccurate, misleading, and it doesn't actually say anything about the role of the Chinese soldiers or assert their notability. Is this your reasoning? Ostap 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Absolutely correct. I couldn't have put it better. Someone finally gets the point! --Ludvikus 06:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    I do find your argument convincing. The only thing I could say to try and compromise would be to have the image properly labeled as what it is and your other concerns addressed in the article, though I am not sure how one could actually go about completing these tasks. Perhaps it is better to just not have the poster. You do have good points. Cheers, Ostap 06:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Great. But why are you preaching to the converted? You've paraphrased my points so well, why don't you make your agreement known to our Polish cousins on the Talk page of the Article? --Ludvikus 06:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Its been done. Have you been back to your parents town? I too am from Halychyna. Ostap 06:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    I have not visited Yet. What city or town are you from?
    I get it now! Your the editor who proposed the "the" for Ukraine. English grammar has no actual reason for the "the". It may sound more natural, but it actually really shouldn't. Consider it as unecessary as that image. And I come from Lviv. Ostap 06:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    No, no, no! I know that after the fall of Communism, (the) Ukraine determined that its official name is not The Ukraine, but Ukraine. However, I was only asking what the proper English is in the middle of a sentence:
        "I come from Ukraine"?
    

    or

        "I come from the Ukraine"?
    

    I was only asking the question! --Ludvikus 07:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    I see. I don't see any grammatical reason to have a "the" even in that context. But, I suppose its really no big deal in text like that. Its most important when talking about the official name and what not. Some use it deliberately to be offensive, some have used it innocently all their lives and still do. I even talk to other Ukrainian immigrants who learned the "the" and still use it. Ostap 07:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    It's like: "I'm from the United States. Or I'm from the Netherlands, or the Vatican.
    Where you born in Ukaraine? And if so, how old were you when you left? It's very important regarding the use of "the" in the English language. I have a friend, Turkey, Physicist now, but he came over to the US at 15. He still does not know when to use "the", and whent not to! --Ludvikus 07:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    The Netherlands and The US are plural terms, hence the article. Some countries with adjective modifiers, such as the United Kingdom, or the Ukrainian SSR would require the "the" also. The Vatican I can not explain, I will give you that one. The best evidence on my behalf would be there is no "the Germany", "the France", the Brazil, the Turkey, ect. When talking about non-native speakers using articles correctly, then of course there is the issue of people whose native languages don't even have articles or the concept of them. You said you know its officially just Ukraine, so I don't think it really matters what you use when speaking. Best regards, Ostap 07:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Your mistaken on the plural rule. Here's another counterexample for you: I arrived in the United States and settled in the Bronx. The Rule is Pure Custom - nothing else. --Ludvikus 07:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    I would counter by saying that the pronounciation of the word itself sounds enough like a plural word to warrent the article. Ostap 07:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Nice try. But we know something else. The name derives from Jonas Bronck, and it was his real estate that was known, by the Dutch, as Bronck's land. And there's no plural there, only the possessive. --Ludvikus 07:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Why don't we just stop Wikipedianizing, get ourselves a couple of beautiful Ukrainian blond girls and take them to the Riviera? Is it because we have two girls that it's the Riviera? --Ludvikus 07:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, but which Riviera? Just simply the riviera would be a geographic region, such as the west or the north or the pacific, not a country.
    I'd hate to be a Wikipedianizer. I must now sign off and bid you good night, or morning, or whatever depending on your geographic position. Ostap 07:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Or two black girls from The Gambia . But seriously, I have no idea about the article's usage. I try to get native speakers to copyedit everything I write, including on-wiki. Articles and prepositions are especially troublesome. Native speakers sometimes correct what I wrote though adding the to Ukraine. Personally, I have no idea which one is better. IMO, saying that the is somehow offensive is nonsense. I don't use it simply because currently the article-less form seems to prevail in modern English which makes it "correct". For the very same reason I use Kiev as the prevailing usage is the definition of the correct from in English, the language that does not have a regulating body, unlike Russian and Ukrainian where special branches of the Science Academies define what is correct. --Irpen 08:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    That's a (friendly?) surprise Also, France, is the important (Culture, and all that) model of officially pronouncing "correct" linguistic usae! Since "the" is the most common word in English, it's probably the greatest source of errors for non-naitive English language speakers. I think we need a special Artilcle on this artcle. --Ludvikus 12:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Did you follow the link? The page was titled Chinese in Russian Revolution, which is grammatically incorrect. You were the one who moved and added the "the" right? Ostap 03:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    You're funny, Ostrap! Here I am, trying to get the Article deleted, as well as the Poster, and you observe that I corrected the English usage in it, of the article "the." There's the Irony !!! --Ludvikus
    I don't understand? Ostap 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    Now that's even more funny. You see the Trees, and even the Leaves, Ostrap, but you don't see the Forest!!! Aren't you aware that User:Mikkai has Reverted my Deletion of the Poster for the 4rth time? You remind me of the joke about the woman (I'm making this up) who was told she had terminal Cancer, and she complained about the little Scratch on her nose. --Ludvikus 03:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    Is this a complex way of saying you want me to remove the poster from the article? I was not even aware that it was re-added. Ostap 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    You're saying that you are trying to get the article deleted, where is the place to vote? I, Ostap would like to place a vote. Ostap 03:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    Don't revert for a Fifth time! The place to vote is there: "this article's entry." But also, please express yourself on the issue of the Poster!!! --Ludvikus 03:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

    Reply

    First, my apologies for not attending to The Morning Post: I have been travelling. In any case, the issue seems to have settled. The same approach might be advisable in the present case - wait and see, or take it to talk. Banno 08:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Greetings

    Thank you for the invitation, as soon as I have more time Iwill be glad to help out. Greetings and respect. Tymek 17:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Your recent edits

    --SineBot 04:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC) -->
    

    Interesting reading

    I think you may be interested in this: .-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

    IfD note

    An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1919_Civil_War_poster_-_White_Russian_Anti-Semitism_(39)_t1919b.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Irpen 19:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Irpen 19:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)}}

    Thank you for your criticism

    I'm sorry I employed the word "true" in my mistaken edit of the article in question. "Truth" is not the issue in plagiarism and I regret it if I seemed to imply as much.

    As a matter of fact, the history of anti-Semitism is not an obsession with me (as it clearly is with so many people) and I had not heard of either the 1903 Znamya edition of the Protocols or of Maurice Joly's 19th Century French political satire. My sole reading in the field of what I suppose we should begin calling "Protocols of the Elders of Zion Studies" was the article I had edited, which makes no mention of these. I got the impression from reading it that this Russian fakir was the original source of the slander.

    I would agree with you that I am at fault for not having done wider reading in this area and having much-too-naively blundered in, like a barefoot child into a minefield. Writtenright 07:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

    Thank you for your very kind and understanding words of forgiveness. I am truly sorry for my bad edit, and I thank you for changing it back to plagiarism. I am honoured by your request to help with the Chinese in the Russian Revolution article, and am eager to get to it as soon as possible. You will have to check it carefully, as my knowledge of Russian history leaves a great deal to be desired! Thanking you again, Writtenright 18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

    Why I left out the Japanese

    I believe I left out the Japanese because the Japanese, at that time, were not traditionally allies of the Russians, and would be unlikely to be working for the Russian Red Army. There was a war called the Russo-Japanese War which had taken place just a few years earlier--didn't you know that? Also, I don't believe the Japanese, who had modernized themselves in the 19th century, retained such long mustaches such as are typically used in caricatures of Chinese (or, at least, were used as such in the silent films of the first decades of the 20th century). Badagnani 07:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

    Another editor, named Temur, said, "On the picture there are some men who look like Chinese but they can be anything from Buryats, Mongols, Kalmyks, Tuvanians, Altai-men, Kyrgizs, Kazakhs, Chukchas, or Crimean Tatars." However, if it is true that the White Russians had as a primary part of their propaganda the (racist) claim that Russia would be taken over by Chinese, Jews, etc., then they probably are Chinese. The skullcaps and long mustaches seem more typically Chinese to me than indicative of those other Central Asian ethnic groups. In my opinion, the poster is historically important, and interesting in this context. Badagnani 07:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

    I mentioned the Ukrainian article because, before I edited it, it was actually written from a pro-Polish and anti-Ukrainian perspective. I guess there are some other pretty important things going on. I should tell you though, Irpen is not Polish. I think the article still needs to be expanded and clarified and so on. Good luck with that and the other articles you edit. I see you edit the Protocols. I have never studied this, but I have heard what they say. I have read that they are being taught as fact in some middle eastern schools. Is this true? Ostap 02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I read once that they were the most influential and dangerous peices of hate literature ever created. I wanted to find out more about them so I did a little research (not an exhaustive study) and concluded the same as you. How anyone in history could ever believe such anti-Semitic, hateful nonsense amazed me. That this is still being taught as truth today is frightening. Ostap 03:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

    AfD Nomination: The Protocols of Zion (imprints)

    Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Misplaced Pages articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Misplaced Pages is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that The Protocols of Zion (imprints) meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

    Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints). Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

    Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. IZAK 09:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

    Why are you advising me what I would never do - delete a delete template? --Ludvikus 15:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    This is actually funny, because it was not "me" who was "advising" you, it was the "advisory" template {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title<nowiki>}} that I placed here that "advises" automatically by creating this script here, that includes advice about what to do with another template. So it was a template advising about another template, as it were. Thanks, ~~~~

    AfD nomination of Żydokomuna

    An article that you have been involved in editing, Żydokomuna, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Żydokomuna. Thank you.IZAK 10:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

    AfD nomination of The Jewish Bolshevism

    An article that you have been involved in editing, The Jewish Bolshevism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism. Thank you.IZAK 10:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

    AfD changes

    Hello. If you have new articles to add for deletion, do so in their own submission. Changing an existing AfD, especially with edits that may be construed as WP:POINT issues, is not a good idea. Please stop. Thank you. -- Avi 15:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

    And please see WP:TPG. Do not refactor a discussion; you may add your own comments if you wish, but do not edit or re-order the contributions which other editors have made to the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    If you have comments to add, do so in such a way that it does not appear that you are refactoring a submission to AfD. Namely, in line with everyone else. -- ~~~~