Please discuss things here. --Ludvikus 15:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is YOU that is doing the vandalism and reversion. You may not change the format of the nomination under any circumstances! IZAK 15:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you are concerned with Form, you have Deleted my Comments - deliberately - that Vandalism. I may have made errors in form only. --Ludvikus 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I did not delete any of your comments, they were all placed in one column under your name, but what you did is a total outrage, how dare you reorganize a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page after it has been properly nominated and submitted? No-one is allowed to do that. While I retained all your comments and commentary, I reverted to the original format and removed your horrendous re-organization of this page into "Pro" and "Con" segments, and the other stuff you added like an cative template on a VfD page, something that is never done. IZAK 15:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. As long as you do not break the rules here you are free to add as many more points and contribute to the main AfD discussion page (usually these AfD talk pages are not even used), but under no circumstances are you to re-organize the formatting or refactor the main AfD page. I hope that is very clear! IZAK 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean by (1) "re-organize the formatting" and (2) "refactor"? Are these not discussion pages? What's with your anti-formating attitude? I have no idea of what WP Rule you might be invoking. And, again, what's "refractor"? You should be more co-operative with me. We are supposed to be on the same side - the side of Wikipedia. You seem like an expert in the art of deleting WP articles. You might be missing their pupose - by taking an undue advantage of your aforesaid expertise. Cheers. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Protocols
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion Versions of The Protocols Contemporary imprints of The Protocols
First publication of The Protocols
Programma zavoevaniya mira evreyami
Writers, editors, and publishers associated with The Protocols
Carl Ackerman Boris Brasol G. Butmi Charles Coughlin Natalie de Bogory Denis Fahey Henry Ford L. Fry H. A. Gwynne Harris Houghton Pavel Krushevan Ernest G. Liebold Sergei Nilus George Shanks Fyodor Vinberg Clyde J. Wright
Debunkers of The Protocols
Vladimir Burtsev Herman Bernstein Norman Cohn John Shelton Curtiss Philip Graves Michael Hagemeister Pierre-André Taguieff Lucien Wolf
Commentaries on The Protocols
The International Jew Mein Kampf
v t e

• There is no such thing as a single book here. So to claim that there is to manifest ignorance - something these articles attempt to show. This Warrant for Genocide has been, and continues to be used, by antisemites to attack Jews & Israelis. After WWI it was believed that by many descent Jews that "if we just keep quiet about this, it will go away." It did not go away and 6,000,000 Jews paid the price for that. I believe that we should and must flood the world with the Truth behind that Lie to the point where no one will want to have anything to do with it. That is the only way to fight this nonesense and garbage. Let me repeat: there is no such thing as the Protocols of Zion. There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe. That is why all these articles must be kept. If you want something deleted you should delete the following: Jewish Bolshevism and Żydokomuna (which also is supported by the Warrant for Genocide), as well as it's current version in Polish which is being put up by true believers in The Protocols. I'm sorry you find this distasteful. But you should think of my job on Wikipedia as a Doctor trying to cut out a cancer. And since you cannot stand to handle it, you should let me do your dirty work for you. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The accusation that there is here "Wikipedia:Content forking; WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; and cumulatively borders on WP:NOR" is simply arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, reckless, and unfair. --Ludvikus 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that everyone (but me) is also for Merge. That's good. I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT. But the current ((Main)) article is yet inadequate to support these subordinate articles of the actual antisemitic imprints, articles, pamplets, books, etc. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All these subordinate articles send the reader to the Main Article (which unfortunately is still inadequate). I wish (through these subordinate titles) to educate the readers that there is no such thing as a single book. There even is no single title. And there is no single author. Its really a collection of antisemitic events spread over time. And it's all about The Non-Existent Manuscript, as Cesare G. De Michelis has so ably put it. --Ludvikus 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luvicus: Kindly stop using obscenties/four letter words repeatedly. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Civility and the way you are addressing people here comes across as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Take note. IZAK 16:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are not controlling yourself in this regard, see this [1] at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism, it is not acceptable. Please stop. IZAK 17:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please be more specific as to your accusations against me. As my accuser you should not leave such charges to my imagination. I should not have to guess what you have in mind. --Ludvikus 17:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In addiotion, you should stick to the topic, and not refer to other articles. Let other issues be discussed elsewhere - not here. Things are already complicated by there being many articles grouped here for deletion. --Ludvikus 17:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You, User:IZAK, are apparently a very experienced Wikipedian. It seems that you believe that I've used "vulgarities". However, you have not kept the principles of Good Faith in that accusation. You are talking about conduct in a totally different space, namely: The Jewish Bolshevism. If that is your opinion, please feel free to bring it up there - but not here. You are apparently merely attempting to portray my conduct, once again, as bizarre. I do not deny you that opportunity. However, you must not do that here. The topic here is already far to complicated - you are already forcing me to defend several articles that you believe should be deleted. It is not good for Wikipedia for you to bring in my alleged use of improper "vulgarities" elsewhere. I therefore ask you to cleanup (from here) all references to what I have done regarding a totally unrelated article. Cheers, --Ludvikus 22:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [2] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [3]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending "fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own open obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As the initial author of many of these alleged "bizarre" articles, why do you think it is not proper for me to add my point of view here - for the convenience of the reader? I do not believe you are respecting the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia rules by deleting, reverting, and otherwise censoring my position regarding these articles. It is unfair to Wikipedia editors not to have before them the alternative opinion - an opinion which immediately tells them why there is nothing bizarre about the inclusion of the items listed by you above as bizarre. I want Wikipedia editors to have immediately the other point of view - that's all I want to do - right here, in this space. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ludvikus: Is there anything that you have not managed to say yet? Have you never participated in a procedure like this? Once the nominator has created the page to nominate an article for deletion/merging or whatver, no-one can come along and change it, as you tried to do a few times already and that is a violation of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Anyone can present their points as part of voting for or against the deletion/merge or whatever is being suggested. One can even come up with a new solutionas some other users are doing here, IN THE MIDST OF THEIR VOTE BUT NOT IN THE BODY OF THE NOMINATION. But how can you have the audacity to claim that you, or anyone, is "deleting, reverting, and otherwise censoring my position regarding these articles" when so far no one has done anything to "your" articles. They have merely been nominated for delition/merging or whatever, and you are free to add your reasons here why they should be kept or not. But remember the rule of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, that everyone is subject to. You will have to make a better case than this griping. Just look at the reasoning of others below and feel free to add comments. But honestly, how mush more do you wish to state without falling into overkill and violating Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man which you may have already done? IZAK 16:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You are not being truthful about my conduct. While you - a very experience WP Deletion Master - have your discriptive paragraph above, you have repeatedly, and recklessly, removed my position, expressed in a similar paragraph. And it appears that you do not even have the decency and respect for me to keep my word Keep in the above. You imply that I've already managed to say a lot. But the fact is that you've Vandalized my comments. It seems to me that you only wish Wikipedians to be informed that what I've done is bizarre. But you keep deleting my position that your views is one of ignorance. Now I will not restore what I have written. I expect you to do that. After that, I hope you have the capacity to apologize to me - but not before you come down from the top of the Reichstag. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither are your Red herrings any good here, except to distract editors from your position of ignorance. Why you accuse me of claim that any of these article are "mine" is an utterly dishonest attack on my integrity. It seems you will not stop at anything to make me appear bizarre. I'm not talking here about changing ANYTHING which you wrote. I'm asking you to let me write a descriptive paragraph of my own explaining to Wikipedians why what you claim is Bizarre is a view which clearly comes out of ignorance. Why do you refuse to let me do that? I want Wikipedians to have another view besides your own. What is wrong with that? --Ludvikus 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Delete the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. There is no such book called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. To write as if there is - is to fall into an antisemitic trap created by the Warrant for Genocide. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no such thing as a single book here. So to claim that there is to manifest ignorance - something these articles attempt to show. This Warrant for Genocide has been, and continues to be used, by antisemites to attack Jews & Israelis. After WWI it was believed that by many descent Jews that "if we just keep quiet about this, it will go away." It did not go away and 6,000,000 Jews paid the price for that. I believe that we should and must flood the world with the Truth behind that Lie to the point where no one will want to have anything to do with it. That is the only way to fight this nonesense and garbage. Let me repeat: there is no such thing as the Protocols of Zion. There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe. That is why all these articles must be kept. If you want something deleted you should delete the following: Jewish Bolshevism and Żydokomuna (which also is supported by the Warrant for Genocide), as well as it's current version in Polish which is being put up by true believers in The Protocols. I'm sorry you find this distasteful. But you should think of my job on Wikipedia as a Doctor trying to cut out a cancer. And since you cannot stand to handle it, you should let me do your dirty work for you. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The accusation that there is here "Wikipedia:Content forking; WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; and cumulatively borders on WP:NOR" is simply arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, reckless, and unfair. --Ludvikus 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I notice that everyone (but me) is also for Merge. That's good. I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT. But the current ((Main)) article is yet inadequate to support these subordinate articles of the actual antisemitic imprints, articles, pamplets, books, etc. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• All these subordinate articles send the reader to the Main Article (which unfortunately is still inadequate). I wish (through these subordinate titles) to educate the readers that there is no such thing as a single book. There even is no single title. And there is no single author. Its really a collection of antisemitic events spread over time. And it's all about The Non-Existent Manuscript, as Cesare G. De Michelis has so ably put it. --Ludvikus 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut & Pasted from Main page. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This debate seems to be getting a tad bit heated. I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone that there are no angry mastadons. Further, it would be good to remember to AGF, as I don't think anyone here is trying to assert that the Protocols were a legitimate publication (or indeed, a single text, much less a real single one). I think it's widely recognized that they were used as a anti-semitic hoaxes (a point mentioned in the articles I believe). If you feel that point isn't made clearly enough, please discuss it on the articles' pages. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your delivery of peace and peacefulness. Unfortunately, there is an exception to the assumption of good faith here. This subject, and its article(s) is an invitation to trollers, and all those without good faith. That's the real world, and Wikipedia is in it. So your advice here can only mean that one should act as if the other were acting in good faith - a very, very, difficult act to accomplish. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ludvikus, I tried to explain to you a few weeks ago that you shouldn't turn Wikipedia deletion discussions into personal attacks. I know your heart is in the right place, but please understand that right-thinking people can have honest differences of opinion without being blind to antisemitism, or being antisemites themselves.
    You aren't doing yourself or your "cause" any good by behaving the way you are. If you want to convince people that there is a need for a dozen articles about The Protocols in all its variations, you need to do so in a level-headed fashion. Acting like an out-of-control maniac suggests to other editors that the creation of a dozen similar articles was the action of an ... out-of-control maniac, not a sensible editor. Please, for your own good, bite your tongue and act like a reasonable Wikipedia editor. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ludvikus, Wikipedia is not censored. I agree that material could be inflammatory. But that's a reason to present it in context, not remove it (if that's not your goal, I apologize, I'm having trouble following all the comments here). But whatever your goals are, acting in accordance with our civility policy will only help you. (And of course, the converse is also true). best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gentlemen. This is the Discussion page. It is a good place to iron out our differences so that what we write on the Project place is Rational and Coherent. I suggest that you both go back to the Project page and read what I'm writing there. Furthermore, description like out of control maniac are conclusory and unhelpful in guiding someone so that they would improve their "behavior" which you claim is your goal. It would be much more useful if you pointed out exactly what you perceive as such behavior.
      • You should also be fair. No one yet has come to my defense regarding the offensive description of my work here on Wikipedia as bizarre. If you both wish is to create civility, I suggest you go back to the Project page and examine the fact that I've cleaned it up. Yet no one so far has made any effort to enforce civility on the other major protagonist in this debate. Gentlemen, imagine for a moment, if you will, a discription of your work as bizarre. Would you consider that civil behavior? Is there a double standard here? One for me, and one for him?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not at all. Malik probably could/should have been more polite. But up until recently, your conduct was inflammatory/inappropriate, so thank you for improving it. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Malik here? What, or whom, for G-d's sake, are you talking about? --Ludvikus 05:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that would be the editor who replied directly above me. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." and as you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending "fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own opne obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 12:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The series of articles proposed for deletion by the deletion nominator herein, (User:IZAK), are

1. neither Repetitive;
2. nor Duplicative;
3. they do not violates Wikipedia:Content forking;
4. the do not violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; and
5. they do not cumulatively border on WP:NOR.
6. The claim that "[t]here has always been one very good featured article about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is misleading at best. True, the article has been featured; but that it was "very good" is the mere uninformed opinion of this one editor.
7. The articles here could not, and cannot now, be easily summarized.
8. Regarding so-called WP:LISTification, one of the articles does just that - but it too is in the list for deletion.
9. The accusation that "for some bizarre reason the creator of these "articles" User: Ludvikus seems to think that Wikipedia needs an article about every version of this abominable book that was ever thought of or written in any language" comes from - at best - general ignorance of the subject matter herein.
10. That "most of the articles here are just bloated paragraphs with publication information" is a conclusory POV. The editor who says this appears unable to digest the fact that there is no such thing as the book - so he disparages the most important facts to be stated - the publication events about this plurality of items.
11. These "articles" cannot be combined and merged into the already bloated main article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and accordingly, splitting is unavoidable and necessary.
12. The further disparaging remark regarding the drivel about deleting bulk of the "publication information" is again, at best, a manifestation of extreme ignorance as to the subject matter.
13. What is asked regarding "transferred to Wikisource (the multiple images of the texts should be transferred to Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons)" manifests another kind of ignorance at best - what constutes the several marticles themselves.
14. Regarding the "article names", that these "should be redirected to the main The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article" would create a redundancy at best. The "article names" are the names of the most notoriously important imprints of the diverse books, spread over space and time, which fall under the unfortunate category of the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Knowledge of these titles has already been acknowledged and absorbed into the main article.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you're (the Deleting editor) mistaken as to the above.

The Talk page has all sorts of personal attacks on my person by User:IZAK and that's improper.

I've been asked to read the so-called Talk page guidelines, and have done so.

I suggest you do the same.

Furthermore, since the effect of you're removal of that Tag requesting Cleanup is to maintain that material,

it would be nice and also fair, if you took it upon yourself to Cleanup that talk page of all matter which is an attack up my person and has nothing to do with the discussion currently going on on that page where you deleted my request for cleanup. In fact, it serves another sort of improper purpose - to discredit me and thereby anything that I have to say.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((Cleanup)) is for articles, not talk pages. The kinds of things you're complaining about can't really be undone anyway, since they're in the edit history, and removal of personal attacks from talk pages is not generally accepted. Mangojuice^talk 21:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal attacks to remain posted on Talk pages?

Thank you for your opinion. I'm now asking for further verification. You are telling me that the removal of personal attacks from talk pages is un-acceptable at WP? Is that your opinion as an Administrator? I'm very surprised by that. I have read the Talk page guidelines and it seems to me that the contrary is the case. May I have a Second opinion? Thanks for your previous response. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a second opinion, refactoring or removing others comments is generally a bad idea. Further, I'm actually not seeing any comments from Izak that violate WP:NPA. I strongly urge you to let this go. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the second opinion on, see the reply on my talk page. Don't remove other people's contributions from talk pages. And for goodness sake, please let this go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]