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 {{tl|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. `'[[user:mikkalai|Míkka]] 04:15, 11 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 {{tl|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. `'[[user:mikkalai|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 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 development by the time of the Second World War. --[[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] 06:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
This is a Wikipediauser 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 Wikipedia, 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ludvikus/Archive_2.
]] Parameter error in {{ISBNT}}: invalid character
Preceded by
18
Followed by
19
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)[reply]
Something like that? I'm not sure it would look nice with the titles thoughM0RD00R 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
Is this what it purports to be? --Ludvikus 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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, Cygnisinsignis 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, Cygnisinsignis 20:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Cygnisinsignis 18:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morning Post
Talk page apparently got lost during the moves. Currently it is here [2]. Now administrator needs to delete current talk page to make a room for a move. M0RD00R 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. 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. older ≠ wiser 23:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What queries are you referring to? I responded several times to the talk page. older ≠ wiser 02:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You responded only after the Page was Blocked/Locked from being Moved!--Ludvikus 03:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. older ≠ wiser 03:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
--SineBot 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Inadvertent error, slip of the fingers. Ludvikus 02:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC) -->[reply]
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)[reply]
Trying to explain why that were "so many" Jews who were Bolsheviks is original research.
It is also an Antisemitic claim when ellaborated. No encyclopedia in the world would have such an article - except perhaps Hitler's Nazi one. --Ludvikus 12:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about!!! And who is Lacey? --Ludvikus 12:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop. Now.
Stop moving articles without consensus
The next time you suggest another user is a Jew-hater, you will be blocked for personal attacks.
I do not, and would not, call another another user a Jew-hater on Wikipedia. However, I am not responsible for the "suggestions" that come out of the use of antisemitic expressions. --Ludvikus 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]
That's much, much better, JP. Thanks very much for your clarification. Much appreciated, Cowboy Gordon - you look good sitting on your horse on your Homepage. But should I have said "high horse" and "get of of it"? --Ludvikus 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me that I cannot say that the current Wikipedia article, Jewish Bolshevism, is Antisemitic because it would suggest that it's author(s) are "Jew-haters"? --Ludvikus 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would like you to try to delete the Original research on it. I maintain that Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
re. Troll
The thing is, an internet troll on wikipedia is just an internet troll on wikipedia. We don't need a Troll (Wikipedia) 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cannot answer now. Will be back in a few hows. In the meantime, consider Controversial literature. Cheers, --Ludvikus 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Good. Thanks. But none of the above satisfy our need. So I've made a recommendation at the Book categories Talk page here [3]. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia on Proposing new stubs
The following is for my reference. --Ludvikus 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
---[reply]
Proposing new stubs - procedure
Proposing new stubs
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow the following procedure:
Check at Category:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist.
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
Find a good number[4] 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.
Others will do the same, if they feel like it.
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries or Wikipedia: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.
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)[reply]
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 it — iridescent(talk to me!) 14:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Category:Notable or notorious antisemites
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 qualifythe inclusion of a person on this list. Please be very careful in your selections. Remember also that this is nota place to make your own personal judgments. Neither should it be a place or space to libel or slander a living personwith whose views you strongly disagree. Nor is it a place to list someone who exercised poor judgment in the choiceof 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 HeydrichHeinrich HimmlerAdolf Hitler
L
L. Fry
P
Pavel Krushevan
W
Nesta Helen Webster
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Notable_or_notorious_antisemites"
Category: Antisemitism
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Observation noted. Error already corrected previously (prior to your message). Thank you anyway. Cheers, --Ludvikus 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Great. We agree. So way don't you place your vote to Keep here [5]? --Ludvikus 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I didn't "remove" anything. I don't know what your talking about! --Ludvikus 17:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK. Peace! We all make a mistake. But admitting it takes baXXs [explitive? deleted], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
*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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please consider Wikipedia'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've also just placed the proper notice on the Deletion discussion page. --Ludvikus 01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rule against canvassing?
Had no idea that existed. If so, I stand corrected. Thank you. --Ludvikus 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. Please reconsider you're observation. --Ludvikus 01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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):
'''[[Canvassing]]''' 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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#StrangerInParadise is disruptive]].</ref>
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)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate the Rationality that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And, just to clarify, you did not violate any policy :) ( arky ) 02:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
All the best :) ( arky ) 03:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*:::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)[6][reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi! Would you be interested in DYK debate [7] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And stop undiscussed and unproposed moves NOW! --Irpen 19:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What f***ing Moves are you talking about? There is nothing Moving now! --Ludvikus
There are no moves taking place now (you're talking about ancient history by Wiki time).
Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ghetto benches again
Quite to the contrary. Term Ghetto benches is used in English. Just click on this link [8]. How about continuing this discussion on the article talk page. Cheers. M0RD00R 20:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Most accurate translation of the meaning of this term would be "Ghetto in the auditorium". M0RD00R 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Robert H. McNeal, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia 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)[reply]
Stub - developed. --Ludvikus 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I assumed you would understand. You have my apologies. / edg☺★ 03:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Bookintnatjewhankford01.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
Public domain - 1921 imprint. --Ludvikus 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 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 development by the time of the Second World War. --Ludvikus 06:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
As for quoting :Lacqueur, the second quote is sufficient to desribe the whole point. `'Míkka 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Thanks for uploading Image:Bookintnatjewhankford01.jpg.
){kind=link}
