User talk:Rwberndt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NEEDS TO DISCLOSE BIAS MY FIRST USER PAGE VANDALISM !![edit]

THIS PERSON IS A PAID AGENT OF STEINWAY PIANO AND SHOULD DISCLOSE AFFILIATION BEFORE ADDING ADVERTISING TO STEINWAY PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.122.12 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaving this here out of sentimemt - seems I actually got vandalised - must have hit a nerve. Since 1976 I have played and actively supported the playing of YAMAHA musical instruments. I have no affinity for for nor affiliation with Steinway and their Korean masters Samick, just an affinity for and allegiance to an NPOV and truthful Wikipedia !--Rwberndt (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI, the edit this IP objects to was reverting his/her claim that "some experts" (see WP:WEASEL) considered other name pianos superior to Steinway. Not only was the web ref a single person's opinion, but that person listed Steinway on the same level as the pianos promoted by the complainant, not as inferior.--Rwberndt (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Rwberndt! I am Mayank Abhishek and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

мαуαηк αвнιѕнєк talk · contribs 17:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to List of Latin phrases (N)[edit]

Hi there. I assume you must have made a mistake in this diff ('1869 to 1828'). What did you actually mean to write? It Is Me Here t / c 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I have fixed this (albeit late)--Rwberndt (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ramcke[edit]

Be nice if you would have discussed the change before making it. Your interpretation One must be careful in the use of "Nazi".By his acts/words, Ramcke was not a dedicated National Socialist. He escaped once to warn that "punishment" of Germany would bring another Nazi regime/horror. is certainly open to other interpretations than he was a Nazi, even if not a card-carrying member of the party, considering that the SS was absolutely affiliated with Nazism. Ramcke's open praise of the SS certainly doesn't lend itself to other interpretations. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I regret if I came across as aggressive in demeanor. I have added a footnote to the Ramcke article which brings out a quote by Ramcke that is frankly unattractive in political terms. If you believe this is still out of line, please let me know. As a personal comment --

I realize the issues of assessing political beliefs of individuals are complex. People change from day to day and their politics can wander as well. But Ramcke's comments about the U.S. Army as noted in the article seem straight out of Göbbel's propaganda about inferior races, etc. While Ramcke's speech to the SS in the 1950s may simply have reflected resentment on his part for how Germany (and himself) had been treated, the 1944 comment to me indicates that, at least at that point in time, he had taken in a lot of Nazi indoctrination regardless of his actual status as a party member (or not). Thank you for your comments, Mr. (Herr?) Berndt. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I had the rare priviledge of knowing the general's family and reading his personal papers. He was a fierce patriot and somewhat aristocratic military professional. He served many political regimes over roughly half a century, in all 4 branches of the service, in 3 wars, rising from cabin boy to 2-star, only careing for his comrades and the country he served (irrespective of the regime). Just as with American corporate culture, a certain amount of propaganda must be waterfalled as the duty of management in the course of daily operations. I hope no one infers my personal beliefs from what I pass on at work ! In the case of Ramcke's daily orders, the assertion is corret, they are from Goebell's office. In a totalitarian regime, there are even political officers attached to ensure such compliance, but a military professional deals with the beaurocratic requirements and moves on to operational concerns, focusing on objectives, honor, responsibility and the well being of his men and the civilian population. In Brest, Ramcke's willingness to place his men in harms way to protect the evacuation of civilians in spite of the civilian terrorists/resistance who killed one of his men by his side, always abiding by principles of honor and the rules of war, caused his opponent there to be his defender when subsequently tried by the French "justice" system. Certainly General Middleton, the target of those waterfalled remarks, understood that Ramcke was an honorable professional soldier, not a fanatical National Socialist.--Rwberndt (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you tell me ! - got it ! --Rwberndt (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ramcke, again[edit]

Hello Rwberndt, thank you for the cordial note. Regarding the text of the note, are strongly indicative of a high degree of Nazi political indoctrination, what do you think about the phrase "reflect a Nazi view of the world" or "reflect the peculiarly racist outlook of the Third Reich" ? The problem here is that we don't know who the writer of the order was, but it is known that Ramcke's name has become associated with the order because, as commander, his name was on it. Your comments about Ramcke's postwar attitude to America are very interesting -- do you have any published citations that confirm this? (I realize you have stated before you have primary historical materials relating to Ramcke, but as I understand Wikipedia's approach to history, the use of primary historical materials is considered "original research" and is not allowed.) Same question regarding the reason for release -- I changed this because the only easily accessible resource mentions "old age" versus "time served".
I also think a personal comment is in order. My desire as a Wikipedia editor is to present a balanced view. Ramcke was certainly a competent soldier/officer and I understand why he is considered notable. What I do not like is the tendency of some to write articles that are unbalanced. Ramcke's postwar comments reflect at the least a surprising political unsophistication; at worst, a far-right political orientation that had by 1952 been strongly discredited because of the Third Reich's commission of crimes against humanity. Whatever the case may have been, his comments are certainly notable in that they caused an uproar in postwar Germany. Thus, I have brought out this affair to present a more complete picture of the man. It seems to me that 43 years after his death, Wikipedia should be able bring out such aspects of his life rather than present the standard "he was a fine old Kämpfer" view that dominates IMO too many of the biographies of German Second World War military leaders. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Made an edit in which the reason for the French release is not mentioned. It can be re-introduced once (of if) other citations for the reason for release become available. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead and make the edits; I'll discuss if I think they should be tweaked. Ramcke's letter -- whew -- it should be presented as an external link, but I would hardly use it as source material for the article. Perhaps I see these things with other eyes, but when I see a German general complaining of the hardships of POW camp life, the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" springs strongly to mind. If anything, the letter brings out that Ramcke had a sharp mind and could argue well -- but it also brings out either a startling lack of awareness of how the Germans were handling their own prisoners or a willful disregard of the same. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


The edits look good to me. I rearranged some text and added bits here and there. Glad the SMS Adalbert reference helped. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions and comments. I agree the article looks better now, and enjoyed the collaborative effort. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

SMS Prinz Adalbert[edit]

Can't really offer much on this one. Notably, the cemetery site of the city of Kiel mentions three survivors. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos reply[edit]

WP:CARPIX: "The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other. Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox." The only bias introduced is when one particular user favors one generation over another -- "such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other" and tries to impose that preference on the articles.

I have also been accused of being paid to work against Ford (or was it for Ford? now I don't remember) by a user who wanted to use the OLDEST generation photo in an article where the highest-quality photo happened to be of a newer model.

If you have a case to make why one photo is better than another -- without resorting to name-calling or your personal preference for a particular generation -- always make that case on a talk page. That's what Wikipedia is all about. When someone makes a change for a reason that's in conflict with WP:CARPIX or by name-calling, there's not much room left for discussion, but there is no "monopoly" that ever prevents anyone from suggesting a change and everyone from discussing it. IFCAR (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made the switch on the Town & Country page. The reason it hadn't been done earlier was that there were fewer decent photos of the latest-generation Town & Country (so moving it up would mean putting in a lower-quality replacement), but either way works.
With the others, we've each explained our reasoning, so we'll see what other editors have to say. And as always, I'll continue to upload photos as I have them.
But, in the spirit of WP:CARPIX, please be sure you're always arguing based on the merits of the photos -- not choosing a generation and finding some merits later. IFCAR (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Resilient Barnstar[edit]

Resilient Barnstar.png The Resilient Barnstar
Although your first articles were initially not very good, and I spent a lot of time cleaning them up, you have since improved your articles on E.A. Couturier and Boston Musical Instrument Company very much, almost to the point of Good Article status. Keep up the good work on writing about obscure instrument companies! --Nat682 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Brian Bowman[edit]

Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Llewellyn redlink[edit]

Actually, it previously went to Edward Llewellyn-Thomas, before I rejiggered the disambiguation to account for the increasing prominence of the politician.

As far as the red link, the guideline is clear. They should be used when they are relevant to the context (Schilke was Llewellyn's student, so the relevance is clear), and the term could sustain an article. I think the fact that he was principal trumpeter in a major orchestra probably makes him notable, standing alone. The fact that he was influential makes the case more clear. Keyword searches can be useful, but red links are also part of how work is structured here.

I'm sorry you find red links distracting. However, the guideline notes "a valid red link term like driving in Germany should also not be dealt with by removing the link brackets, simply in order to temporarily reduce the amount of red text in the article.", so you should not remove valid red links during cleanup. Instead, there is a preference that can change the appearance of red links, which you may wish to turn on. Superm401 - Talk 05:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I stubbed-in an article, but the resources to do so were mighty thin.--Rwberndt (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you did a great job starting the article; it's definitely better than a stub. Someone will definitely find the birth year. One note for the future is that article's sources should stand alone as much as possible. Rather than refer to the Renold Schilke sources, the necessary ones should be reproduced. Superm401 - Talk 02:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Regrettably inappropriate"[edit]

      • Note for those reading my page - DS had modified a page on my watchlist citing an inappropriate use of wikipedia - I could not remember what had been there and asked on that users talk page. This was the response (a fair one)--Rwberndt (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC):
The content of the talk page in question was a woman who provided far too many personal details, in hopes that someone might be able to provide information about her great-grandfather who had been a tightrope walker.

Regrettably, this is not what talk pages are for. DS (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-Published Sources[edit]

Each of the sources that I removed are self-published sources written by amateur historians and WWII buffs who (i) have not been independently recognized as experts in the field, and (i) whose work in the relevant field not been previously published by independent, reputable third-party publishers. As such, these sources cannot be used in Wikipedia as references, per WP:RS and WP:SPS. Many of these articles - there appear to be literally hundreds of them - which improperly cite and rely extensively on these and similar sources, were written several years ago when Wikipedia didn't take quite as much care as it does now with such sources. If the text is to be maintained (and I have not removed any of the text at this point), those editors interested in these articles are going to have to find sources which actually meet the requirements of WP:RS. These kinds of websites are convenient, but it is not even remotely plausible that there are not other sources, albeit not readily available online, which would meet this requirement. Fladrif (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(also on talk: It is my understanding that SPS applies to those sources produced by the subject of the article, and only when that source is not also a generally recognized significant work (such as Einsteins theory of relativity). The web sources you cut are indeed not particularly scholarly and with regard to awards I actually removed the pilot-observer badge a while back on this page because the source was wrong. As the opponent of the "he was a Nazi" POV, I cannot challenge the other source however without an obvious COI. So with regard to that, all I can say is that the statements would need a CN, given that his other actions and the correspondence recorded between him and Middleton indicate that he was a patriot, but not much of a racist facist fanatic. With regard to the awards, which denote a truely unique military career, I have a source, but a photo of his medals case in his study is not exactly a valid source (though it is how I knew to delete the pilot-observer ref). I guess I would argue that citeweb is a valid wikipedia construct and (even when I disagree with the spin it suggests) a web ref is no less valid than some of the texts often cited and not sel published. The only self-published works are Ramcke's memoirs which wikipedia MOS recognizes as legitimate sources when ref'd purely as such. I think when one deletes a reference, one has an obligation to the integrity of the article to otherwise provide an alternate source, or show by sourced proof, that the claim was incorrect.--Rwberndt (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
No, SPS applies anytime the author is also the publisher, regardless of the subject-matter. Anyone can start a webpage about anything, which is what these authors did. I am hardly under any obligation, having identified the sources as not meeting WP:RS, to go out and find other sources. If, however, those interested in the subject cannot find reliable sources to back this information, some of these articles may well end up being cut back significantly, and in some cases even deleted at AFD at some point in the futureFladrif (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Fladrif, you should discuss this at the MILHIST forum before making further deletions. At the least, there are other editors who disagree with your view on these sources. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Say -[edit]

Keep up the good work. It is far more difficult to be constructive than the opposite. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)