User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 3

This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user "Ludvikus" has no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ludvikus/Archive_3.

Wikimedia Foundation

Wikipedia constantly getting better. --Ludvikus 22:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive: 1 2

Book Information Master Template

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

1: Title

File:3: Image 4: Image caption
Author	5
Translator	2
Illustrator	6
Cover artist	7
Country	8
Language	9
Series	10
Genre	11
Publisher	12
Publication date	13
Published in English	14
Media type	15
Pages	16
Preceded by	18
Followed by	19

Useful templates

• Wikify template: {{Wikify|date=April 2008}}

You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag on German American Bund

Back in September 2007, you added a POV tag to this article. Other editors have since attempted to address the concerns you raised. If you feel their edits have addressed your concerns, please consider removing the POV tag or commenting on the talk page about why those edits are insufficient. Thanks so much. croll (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've made some changes in the opening - to reflect the antisemitic and racist nature of the organization - stating what is in fact common scholarly knowledge about the above. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:1978 Symbolic snake.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:1978 Symbolic snake.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

---

• • There is no date in the above! Why? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Protocols

Let me answer what I think is the easiest question first. I don't think there's any reason to do anything about that dangling talk page. It all looks pretty old and it's not hurting anyone, neither does it look to relevant to anything at the real Protocols page. At the same time, it's usually not a good idea to wipe out the history of what anyone has said. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I discovered it by chance because I omitted the article "The." That page seems to be dangling in the 4th dimension of Wikipedia's cyberspace. However, it belongs with the Talk page of "The Protocols." So my point is the opposite of you you think I want to do. I want to restore it to the place where it belongs. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned comments

The template for adding signatures to unsigned comments is located at Template:Unsigned. You have to follow the instructions and put the user's nick and the time in manually. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Engraved title page - a 1599 Bible titlepage2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Engraved title page - a 1599 Bible titlepage2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The image had no license. I saw that you putted a Public Domain license. The link source you gave to me the hole page is copyrighted, but due to the date (1599) it can be considered as {{PD-old}}. Sincerly, Sdrtirs (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Protocol tags

I am a bit reluctant to block for minor nuisance tagging, and I suspect they'd be back as soon as it was over, with an axe to grind. I suggest an RfC, which would might flush out a useful opinion, or else it would allow any further disruption to be dealt with summarily. Having spent time around some 9/11-related articles, I've learned that blocking determined POV warriors inflames the issue: what the article really needs are more eyes. Acroterion _(talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on the IP's page as well. Acroterion _(talk) 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you. There's no barnstar I'd be prouder to have. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• You write/copyedit very well, by the way. My English writing requires re-writing several times in part because I spoke two other language (and no English) until the age of 10 - Polish is my 1st language, Hebrew was my 2nd language, and English is my 3rd.
• I have to disagree with you regarding your following remark:

    "Well, there had to be one. It couldn't have appeared out of thin air."

That's speculation - even if it's true. It does not belong in encyclopedic space such as a Wikipedia Article. But also what you've written there now (the PSM art.) is simply false: "The manuscript ...". That way of expressing the matter means that there was one and only one manuscript. In fact, Cesare G. De Michelis published in 2004 the most important scholarly work on the subject of the PSM which he title The Nonexistent Manuscript. In it he writes about the plurality of "originals" precisely because scholars know nothing conclusive about the original, what ever the original means. Remember that in one version the story (by Nilus) the "manuscript" is a transcription of a writing in the possession of some secret Jewish organization. So the transcription itself becomes a non-original. There's also the story that it was in French, not Russian - allegedly these "Jews" wrote in French. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Judaic Publishing Co.

A tag has been placed on Judaic Publishing Co. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ref

Help:Footnotes seems fairly good. Look at the wikimarkup of this message.

• First use
• Same work different page
• Second use of this one, exactly same ref
• Second use of first ref. exactly same ref
• Another ref used once only

It is probably better to quote the a work's title in full each time rather than use "ibid" - text with embedded refs may get moved around, still remain valid but the ibid's might become nonsense in the ref list. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I took it upon myself to archive some older messages because the page was seriously too long. If you don't like it, I will willingly revert it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Judaic Publishing Co.

Thanks for the heads up. Actually, there's no discussion of a speedy tag. An admin just looks at the tag and deletes if warranted by the policy. If the article gets nominated for an AfD, be careful of WP:CANVASS --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of New German Critique

A tag has been placed on New German Critique requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that although I added the CSD I am not an administrator and deletion is not my decision. Make sure to use the "hang on" tag and put some notes on the article discussion page to contest the speedy deletion.Rob Banzai (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like quite a lot of users are into placing speedy del tags on articles they have no clue whatsoever. Just a quick 5 minute research - is this too much too ask?. M0RD00R (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that the CSD tag upset you, that was not my intention. The article when I read it (and as it still stands) does not make a case for notability. To reference oneself as being "leading in the field" is not a strong persuader. The CSD process works well though, and between the 'hang on' tag and the discussion page there is a good opportunity to make notability clear which will also enhance the value of the article for visitors. Make sure to integrate any points of notability into your article and there would be no issue with deletion.Rob Banzai (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually was coming back to remove my tag right after the above comment I made but it had already been removed. The system works! ;) I am sorry I created a frustrating Wikipedia experience for you and assure you there was nothing capricious or malicious about it. Farewell! Rob Banzai (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Syntax

I probably thought it was some kind of a mistake. I changed back to your version. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Urs Lüthi

Hello Ludvikus. Nobody has nominated Urs Lüthi for speedy deletion, all that's there are maintenance templates. Cheers! Ashanda (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. In response to your comment, you're correct, I don't read German. But I don't need to read German to do a simple look up of the book you provide as a reference and see that it is written by the subject of the article and therefore counts as a primary source and can't be used to establish notability. All you've asserted in the stub is that this person wrote this book- since not all authors are notable, please explain, in the article, exactly what makes this person worth listing in the encyclopedia. Also, the page is indeed an orphan because when you click on "what links here" all that shows up are redirects and talk pages. The article is also uncategorized. I am not "challenging" you on any of these things, as you asserted to another editor, I am merely trying to help you get the article up to par. Please cooperate and be nice. Ashanda (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why you are seeming to take the placement of maintenance templates as some sort of personal comment or harassment. They are there just as much for readers of the article as they are for other editors. What's the harm in leaving them there until the issues are actually addressed? You are an experienced editor, so you should already understand this. I await your reply. Ashanda (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• But you fail to take account that it is a mere "stub."
• You also know that I am currently writing the article, so it would not hurt you to waite just a few hours (I'm not asking even for a Day!
• The One other person I contacted is supposed to suplly me material from Germany soon.
• I have written about 13,000 edits for Wikipedia since 2006 - so I'm no novice - and what you're doing is extremely distracting - not helpful at all.
• Again - this is a mere Stub - it will get better, if you give it a chance.

Cheers. And be nice yourself, please. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• P.S.:If you want to help - please do - why don't you contribute to the Content instead of Form? I've just learned, from someone who knows a World Class scholar (on the topic of the PSM), that this Article is about perhaps the greatest living authority on the Berne Trial. Now notice that I have not written that - that's because I do not have the Reference - yet. But you could help if you tried to learn some more about the Topic and find a way to get the information which I am seeking. I'm going to your page to see what you are interested in. Good night for now. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WHAT! You've only been a Wikipedian a mere week? Since April 21, 2008? Well, I guess I should be very gentle with you??? --Ludvikus (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment of my user page. To address your final point first, one needn't have a registered username to be a wikipedian- I've actually been editing Wikipedia for some time. You assert on my talk page that this person is important to the Berne Trial article, but that article doesn't even mention him. You say above that the templates distract you, but they only show up as curly brackets with a short phrase in them in the wikitext, and that's what you're mostly looking at while editing; just ignore them until the issue is addressed. If you want time to be able to track down all your sources to properly verify your subject's notability, you should develop it on a subpage of your userpage rather than in the mainspace. That way you wouldn't have to deal the distractions of valid maintenance templates. If you wouldn't mind providing page numbers for your first two references, I will be happy to verify the listings as the books are available at nearby libraries to me. The third reference, however, I don't think is really any good as it's only to a citation footnote in that article.

I really do think you should move the article into your userspace pending further development. Please feel free to ask me for any other help I may render. Happy editing! Ashanda (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you want me to do all the work? You seem to miss the point of a {{stub}}. I want to get others to do the work while I take a break - to sleep - to eat - or whatever. By having a Stub others are invited to participate and the burden is lifted of my only sholders. I'm not Hercules who took over Atlas's task. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I thought that you wanted to work more privately. That is the implication of removing the maintenance tags since the tags' primary purpose is to attract other editors to the effort. Also, just because an article is being developed in userspace doesn't mean collaboration can't take place; you can either invite other editors individually (like your friend who has those references), or collectively at places like Requests for feedback. Also, I'll again offer to fact check those first two references if you'll give me page numbers. Thanks again and feel free to call me if you need anything. Ashanda (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for you're offer. I'll take up on that right away. First of all i do not wish to work privately at all. I just wanted to tell you that you should - so to speak - let someone finish their sentence before you criticize their thought - if you know what I mean. But also, I love Wikipedia - and the Good it can do in the Worl. So it is personally a bit adictive. I must do other things besides spend my time in Cyberspace. So I want to hold off on Urs Luthi for a couple of days. Instead, I'm going to take a brake - but before I do I'd like to solicit your assistance in another area which I'll name below (Ludvikus (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)):

Judaic Publishing Co.

Hello! I am not offended by your revert, and have added another stub category indicating only that this is a stub for a publishing company.

I added the {{sociology-stub}} before because it was the most specific stub category I could find that described why this publisher was of interest. I did not mean to indicate that this company's publications were about sociology, but rather that the study of antisemitism is (at least according to the Wikipedia category tree) a subcategory of the study of sociology. That is, there is no stub category for antisemitism, so I checked a parent category, racism, and so on up the category tree until I found a category with a stub category.

Thanks for creating this article and for letting me know about the revert! Happy editing. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism & Historical revisionism

I wish to Wikipedia:Move the former Latter into the Former latter! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your move of Revisionism to Revisionism (disambiguation), because links from "word" to "word (disambiguation)" tend to lead to alteration to the redirect either through good faith edits or vandalism. If you still want to make this move then pleased discuss it on talk:Revisionism first. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of John S. Curtiss

A tag has been placed on John S. Curtiss requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ludvikus,

John S. Curtiss may be a notable historian, but the article makes no such assertion. The article consists of a single sentence that he is an American historian of old Yankee stock. Please review WP:BIO to see the criteria by which a person is judged to be notable. If Curtiss meets those criteria, the article should say so, and it should include reliable sources as well. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a mere {{stub}} - not an article.Ludvikus (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove the request for speedy deletion and replace it with Template:Notability.

May I suggest that, in the future, you might consider developing one-sentence "stubs" into articles in your User space before you turn them into Wikipedia articles? For example, you might draft an article at User:Ludvikus/John S. Curtiss and move it to John S. Curtiss when it is ready to meet Wikipedia's WP:BIO criteria.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

John S. Curtiss (again!)

Did you mean a monogram or a monograph? Philip Trueman (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar, it really was not much effort!

--Crusio (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Herbert Baxter Adams Prize x

A tag has been placed on Herbert Baxter Adams Prize x requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ashanda (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's an obvious copy and paste job. Ashanda (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about! It's the List of awardees that the meat of it. That's why I also tagged it for Cleanup. What do you mean by "obnoxious"?Ludvikus (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I said "obvious", not "obnoxious". The whole text was exactly from the website. Ashanda (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misreading. But isn't the point to have a List of the Awardees? Cleanup will solve that problem! Ludvikus (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the introductory text that was a copyright violation. Ashanda (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

On a stylistic note, I don't think a long lists of recipients is needful, especially on such a short article anyway. Ashanda (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm required by WP policy to assume Good Faith regarding your recent conduct, so I will.

• (1) A brief, cited quote is never a copyright violation. Besides, my WP:Cleanup effectively asked for paraphrasing.
• (2) If you check more carefully, you will find that the other article does just that lists all the award receipients.
• (3) I ask that you immediately restore that speedy deletion of yours you seem to have done, improperly, after I had Tagged it with the {{hangon}} notice. Ludvikus (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Information already exists on Herbert Baxter Adams Prize. Why are you creating an article with an incorrect title? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wrong. The Awardees are not listed. Are you saying that to list them is a Copyright Infringement? Isn't that why you Speedily delerd it? Ludvikus (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• And what's with the "P" vs. "p" in the article title?Ludvikus (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Also, you failed to sign your Notice above - having me confuse you with Ashanda. Please sign your name above so it is clear that it is you who deleted. Ludvikus (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon some thought I think you have a point regarding the capitalization since "Prize" may be part of the name of the subject. I'l have to look around and see what the consensus is on that. As to a list of recipients, there's a link to a list of them on an independent website, IMHO a long list will overwhelm the article while it's still in its stub stage. Maybe later in its development the list can be added in. Ashanda (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Herbert Baxter Adams prize incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Herbert Baxter Adams prize to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Ludvikus (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I set up the *uncontroversial* move on the redirect hours ago... of course you commented out the template for that when I was busy in the real world so that prevented it from happening. Can you slow down a bit and look what's around before jumping off please? Ashanda (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Slow down"? Are you kidding me? When I took it easy I had my work Speedily Deleted (by your inadvertent action) in a flash! I do not want my work to go to waist because of slowness. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Image

What are you trying to do? El_C 13:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Jjust tried to talk to you - and send you a beautiful image as a Greeting! But it seems I messed up! Sorry again! --Ludvikus (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. What's on your mind? El_C 13:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

On the Jewish Question vs. A World Without Jews

Inserted Subtitled by me now:--Ludvikus (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just sent you a brief comment on your page. Lets talk on mine. I suspect we can resolve some issues well. So I would like to keep the discussion on my page, if you don't mind? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I recommend you check out The Jewish Bolshevism which is related to our common concern regarding Books - worked on this a lot, in order to show the origin of the related [perjorative]]. In fact, I introduced it as a Stub - and it survived the unfounded discription of WP:Forking. Ludvikus (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd like to keep the discussion in one place so that it remains unfragmented. Thx again. El_C 14:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like very much to discuss with you what I think is a very complex issue. It turns out that this text is only known in the United States and the United Kindgum by that "anti-Communist" name and/or title. I sympathize with your position, and I do hope we can come up with the correct, dialectical, solution. Best regards, --Ludvikus (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The majority of English translations will yield the conventional name (the two links you cited in the article are the minority and do not count as proof). A simple google test yields ~2500 entries for A World Without Jews and ~50,000 entries for On the Jewish Question (with ~10,000 Wikipedia-related results omitted). Likewise: google scholar produces ~less than 100 entries for the former versus nearly 3,500 entries for the latter. I submit that you have no proof that the article "is only known in the United States and the United Kindgum by that [name]" and you are, therefore, grossly in error. [underline is my emphasis; not only is it not only, it is scarcely any] Thx for reading. El_C 14:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I will review what you recommend. However, I'm quite convinced on some points already, though I'm open to discussion. *First of all, using Google now can be quite reckless. Google appears now to give top weight to Wikipedia articles. And quite a few Web sites re-publish WP's articles. So that gives you a vicious circle, if you know what I mean.

• But also, if you neglect what the LOC and BL do, and rely on your own survey, that means your ingaging in WP:Original research. Why are you just ignoring what I've posted on the Talk page which shows what the Libraries say, and insist and doing your own research? Look! It's clear that you presenting Marxist views. So let me put it in those terms. Your task is to present things as they are in Capitalist society here, within Wikipedia, is it not? Or do you think "the point is to change the world", and you wish to do that by dignifying Marx's work against the bourgoisie? In that regard you are an idealist, because you refuse to recognize reality. The reality is that within the United States and the United Kingdom - two Capitalist countries - ruling class(s) have reduced the text which you interpret as On the Jewish Question by Karl Marx into that 1959 book by that "bearugeois" editor. That's putting it into the language of Marxism. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Claiming that two sources (even if authoritative) somehow equate as, not only the majority but as the only, translations for the title in the US and the UK, appears to be the true original synthesis here. Whereas the (English-language) google test and google scholar survey are useful, albeit crude, mechanisms that show general tendencies for usage in the English-speaking world, popularly as well as in academia. El_C 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good. I'm glad we are talking. Now lets move our discussion to the Talk page of the article. There are only 2 others there now. Please feel free to Cut & Pase whatever you feel useful from this page. But now I think we can talk on that page, OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop edit warring and honour Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. As for the "talking", you seem to be discussing my motivation as much as you are the subject, which dosen't inspire confidence that you truly grasp the material. Just relax. El_C 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment on my talk page, I'd like a citation that shows that the title "A world Without Jews" is used anywhere apart from as the title of that specific edition. There's plenty of justification for using the title "On the Jewish Question", as that title is used in Robert Tucker ed. The Marx-Engels Reader(2nd ed., Norton, 1978), Karl Marx, Early Writings (Penguin, 1975), David McLellan, ed. Karl Marx: Selected Writings (OUP, 2000), and the Marx/Engels Collected Works (International Publishers, 1975). This last is particularly significant, because as far as I know it's the most authoritative English translation of Marx's works. The only reason to use the "World Without Jews" title would be if the essay was more commonly known by that title; to show that, you would have to produce cites of the essay by that title in the secondary literature, of which there appear to be few.VoluntarySlave (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Look here:

Transcribed by RLB on April 29, 2008, from: http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/world.without.jews.1960.v27n212.htm

The Western Socialist

Vol. 27 - No. 212

No. 1, 1960

pages 5-7

"A WORLD WITHOUT JEWS

Under the above heading a small book has been issued consisting mainly of articles by Karl Marx on "The Jewish Question." These articles were first published in 1844, partly in the "German-French Yearbook" (1) and partly in "The Holy Family" (2),

and form part of the criticism by Marx and Engels of the Young Hegelian viewpoint, with particular reference to the views of Bruno Bauer, a leading exponent of this viewpoint."

--Ludvikus (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hangon tags.

When you are working on an article, and it is incomplete, use an {{underconstruction}} tag, not a {{hangon}}. Underconstruction asks that it be kept for a few days, and most people honor it. Hangon, however, lists it at articles for speedy deletion even if nobody put on a speedy tag. The time to use Hangon is when someone has already placed a speedy tag--then you leave the speedy, add a hangon, & when the speedy & hangon removed, perhaps add the underconstruction. As for the articles on the publishers of anti-Semitic books, I think they will need some sort of evidence that the publisher as such is significant. I'll help what I can, but just the fact of publishing one or two books is not enough. DGG (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much!!! That's a very useful lesson. And I'm so glad you put it here - I'll look for it if necessary. Best to you. Any other such useful advice will be most appreciated! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This should help. El_C 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you too, El_C. But no one has asked for aspeedy deletion on Mr. A World Without Jews. Since he's responsible for that controversial title (to put it mildly) how will some one dare say he's not-notable. But more important, El_C, why are you effectively censuring that hateful title from the WP page? I cannot understand your reasoning on that? Or did someone else remove that 1959 title? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not censuring[sic.?] it, I and the other editors, just don't think it should be the main title or in the lead. Certainly a discussion about it, including Robert C. Tucker's and David T. Cattel's criticism, can take place, but farther in the body of the article. What you had was not proportionate, and frankly, it was just a mess. El_C 20:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I accept everthing - but one thing - it must be in the lead - it is one of its titles - the only title under which it ever was published in book form either in the USA or any other English language edition. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned, the conventional title was published in the US (Tucker) as well UK (Botttomore), so I think you're confused. This is just a minor detail about a title that never saw much usage. It doesn't belong in the lead, rather in a more nuanced discussion at the body. El_C 20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor point: per out style guide, it's probably best to avoid the lead sentence being disparate, then followed by a single sentence that's a paragraph all on it's own. Splitting, therefore, actually makes less sense as per our conventions (check out lead paragraphs of any substantive article as an example). Thx for your patience & understanding. El_C 20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you do, please do not add it to the lead without gaining consensus. I still do understand the fascination you have with it, especially as you keep rationalizing it, saying it was "the only title under which it ever was published in book form either in the USA or any other English language" — it was printed in many books... I fail to see why you view it as so significant. That said, I'd likely be willing to go with whatever Boodlesthecat suggests. El_C 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I notice you used the {{underconstruction}} template, which is used for major edits. I caution you, however, against making "major revamping" before you clear the principal ideas on the talk page. Such an approach will go a long way toward liming friction. Thanks again. El_C 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. I want to avoid friction. I want a scholarly discourse - not an edit war - which is useless. Can you please help me solve the Redirect and Disambiguation problems first? Haven't you noticed my work on that. Also, at this point I'm only interested in the opening. I'm not going to make any major changes without a consensus. But that's the only Tag I know of that fits the current situation. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I'm relieved to learn that. That approach is much appreciated. I'm also pleased that Schwalker has now joined the discussion. I need to take off soon, but hopefully he'll stick around to help advance our discourse forward. With respect to the disambiguation pages, no I haven't noticed anything, sorry. Sure, I'll have a quick look. Thx again. El_C 21:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed it (though I messed it up the first time). You wouldn't have been able to do by yourself, anyway, because some of the redirects got in the way and had to be temporarily deleted (admin-only function). I removed the construction tags, however; I don't think you really need it for this (they're usually used for high traffic articles, which these aren't, so as to let others know not to edit for a bit). El_C 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Urs Lüthi

I have nominated Urs Lüthi, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urs Lüthi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sandstein (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oleg Platonov

If Oleg Platonov is still alive you must provide a citation for such a statement, (see WP:BLP) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Here's your Citation: *Extremist Russian Press Attacks UCSJ, UCSJ: Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union [1] --Ludvikus (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Haven't you heard of Freedom of the Press? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Don't you now that he's a Public Figure? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Whether he's alive or not, therefore is irrelevent. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Why don't you work on the {{stub}} and help develop it? Please do so. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oblichitelnyia riechi

Depending on context. accusatory/incriminating/unmasking speeches/discourses `'Míkka>t 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Judging from your interests, I guess the word "Philippics" will suit. `'Míkka>t 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See user talk:mikkalai. `'Míkka>t 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Below is my Cut & Paste from User:Mikkalai's assistance to me in translating from the Russian (Ludvikus (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)):

Vragi roda cheloviecheskago: posviashchaetsia Soiuzu russkago naroda

Edition: 3-e, obrab. i dop. izd.

Imprint: S.-Peterburg: Tip. Uchilishcha Glukhoniemykh, 1906.

Description: 115 p. ; 24 cm.

Series: Oblichitelnyia riechi

Note: Includes bibliographical references.

Subject: Jews -- Russia -- History.

Antisemitism -- Russia.

Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"posviashchaetsia" = "dedicated to the"

Tip. Uchilishcha Glukhoniemykh = "Print Shop of the School for Deaf and Mute"

Oblichitelnyia riechi = "Accusatory Narrations" - this is my suggestion. May be later you will find a standard translation.

`'Míkka>t 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again to you, a.k.a Mikka. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Critic incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Critic to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanx! But I think the issue has been most likely resolved with the other editor's entry there (I'll also post this on your page): Critic (disambiguation) --Ludvikus (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Standard Work - MIA

I wasn't involved in the speedy delete process -- that is usually initiated by an administrator. I just noticed today that the stub article/disambig was missing. To request reinstatement, you might want to contact a Wikipedia administrator to review the process. I've found User:Bishzilla, User:Dmcdevit, and User:Mel Etitis to be helpful -- but they are often busy, so be patient while waiting for a response. See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

PSM

Looks good to me. I prefer the way you formatted it, as the table of contents isn't really necessary in a disambiguation page of this size, and your way makes the headings smaller, which is also an improvement I think. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Critique

The article Wikipedia:Cleanup resources lists a large number of cleanup tags, that would be a good place to look if you're not sure which tags you want to use. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jewish question (disambiguation)

Inserted Title above & converted Subtitle below: --Ludvikus (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Jewish question (disambiguation)

Jewish question (disambiguation), a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jewish question (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Jewish question (disambiguation) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. `'Míkka>t 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jewish question (disambiguation)

Ok, I'll look at that later on today. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Question

Whether or not a specific member of the list should be on the dab page doesn't alter whether or not a dab page is reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• How come you're preaching to the converted on this fine point? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, you seemed to ask me on my talk page. Did I misunderstand your inquiry? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You and I are for Keep. Do you know that? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Check out what I'm doing now with the speed of light - cause I gotta go eat at The Jewish question, and the fact that I've Tagged all the relevant pages with
      Not to be confused with Jewish question x.
      - if you get my drift. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ludvikus, you are introducing a good deal of confusion into the articles with the edits you are making -- please discuss on the article talk pages before making the changes. Thanks! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please be specific: How many articles? And which exactly? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Final solution to the Jewishish question

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Final solution to the Jewishish question, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Final solution to the Jewishish question is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Final solution to the Jewishish question, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea where that came from. It's either a bad joke, or an error of someone. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ninteenth Century

A tag has been placed on Ninteenth Century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Before you object to the proposed deletion, please take a look at 19th century. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't object. I was not aware of that "19th century" usage. I'm glad you're on the ball, User:Malik Shabazz. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• In fact, I see User:El_C just did a re-direct to it - my hat goes of to him on that [2] --Ludvikus (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article The Jewish Question (Bauer) incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page The Jewish Question (Bauer) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Final Solution to the Jewish Question incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Final Solution to the Jewish Question to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Brass tacks

No one has ever sugggested that Hitler published a pamphlet. What do you actually want? And what advantages do you actually see for it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's just a Copyediting issue. Don't you see the sloppiness in the Capitalization? Common, help me out. It's no big deal. I'm trying to get us to be exact and precise in the use of language on such an emotional topic. Why is that so difficult to understand? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I don't. My usage is "Final Solution", and I see "final solution" as a soleicism. The midsentence "Final solution" is worse, but that ambiguity is unfixable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not certain we're talking about the same thing. There are 2 issues here, and I do not know where you stand. 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• (1) Title of our WP article. Ludvikus (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The title should be Final Solution, because that's what English does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• (2) That reference to Hitler inside the WP article. Can we take these one at a time, please? Ludvikus (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What's the problem? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

---

• The problem is this (second current sentence of the Final Solution article - will Cut & Pasted here: --17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here it comes:

The term was coined by Adolf Hitler as “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe.” The implementation of the Final Solution resulted in the most deadly phase of the Holocaust.

• I Cut & Pasted it exactlty. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• It's a quote - but what's it quoting? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I mean this: “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe.” --Ludvikus (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC) ???
• Also, why is the "S" in "Solution" capitalized? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FMR = For my reference

Cut & Pasted the below by me for my own edification, education & Easy reference. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As per this...

Hey there, JPG. I'm just curious, but what was the reason given for the move request at WP:RM? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Take your pick - MOS:TM, WP:ACCESS, precedent from Doom 3 and Alien 3. JPG-GR (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

On The Jewish Question

Hi Ludvikus,

I don't think I've ever edited that article. I'm not sure what quotes you're referring to. The quotation marks that make the title of the article bold in the first sentence, and italicize the phrase "The Jewish Question"?

I'm guessing that "The Jewish Question" is italicized because Marx's essay is a commentary "on" another work called "The Jewish Question", as opposed to an original work by Marx "on the Jewish question", but that's only my guess. Why don't you ask the editor who changed the style, or post a message on the article's Talk page? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change the formatting of the title on the disambiguation page. I suppose that whoever changed it at the article also changed it at the disambig page, probably for the same reasons. But the italicization at the disambig page should match the article, just as the definition of Final Solution should match that article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(a) The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct readers to articles with the same title, in this case, The Jewish Question. Articles with similar titles (including Marx's book) belong at the bottom.

(b) Instead of writing your own definition of the Final Solution, you should simply use the one in that article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

Thank you, Malik, now I understand you. On (a) I agree 100%. The problem is that while we write the Dosambiguation Page, some comes along and changes the article. So it's hard to conform as you ask. But with (b) you are just being mechanical. If you look carefully it seems you are only Alphabetizing without knowing the article (you say you didn't visit the page).

• Look here: The Jewish Question (Bauer/1843) vs. On The Jewish Question (Marx/1844). These are related: Marx criticised Bauer. But just because the latter has "On" you put it at the bottom of the list. Please go read the articles and you will see why the 2 belong together. These 2 are the Most Important - and a WP user should beable to choose between the two articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm

Uh, Ludvikus, what does this mean? Did you put it on the wrong talk page? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 09:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The pleasure's mine. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not early in the morning at my end as you might think. In fact, it is now...8:45pm here in Singapore.
I see an external link which can be converted into a reference, and apart from the first reference, which appears to have been done properly, the rest apparently aren't cited properly. I'll re-cite them following Template:Cite web. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 12:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not as glamorous as you might think...in any case, about the article, I'm converting all the references to proper cite templates. It'll take a little while. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 13:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done up the citations and did a little extra. Until now, I'm still surprised at how much text can be added into an otheruses tag... -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at Jewish Peril and I think it should be okay. You don't need to request at WP:MOVE for something as minor as this. Be WP:BOLD and do it. I mean, just look at where this article is. Since the subject is called "The Jewish Peril" and not just "Jewish Peril", the article title should also follow suit. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:CambridgeBayWeather: Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. I didn't realise that I had been doing much reversion on the page. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's true. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that. I check it out later on. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)