I am not at home right now. Please leave a message.
- 1 Image copyright problem with Image:Carl Ludwig Siegel.jpg
- 2 October 2008
- 3 Re: Sources
- 4 « Racial nonsense »
- 5 IP addresses
- 6 Checkuser
- 7 Trotsky, descent
- 8 Request for help on Eugene O'Neill conflict
- 9 Thanks
- 10 Books
- 11 After WW1
- 12 WQA
- 13 1906
- 14 Edit-warring at Volksdeutsche
- 15 Expulsion of Germans
- 16 Courage...
- 17 Sodalitium Vitae Christianae
- 18 German resistance
- 19 Georg Cantor
- 20 ArbCom elections are now open!
Image copyright problem with Image:Carl Ludwig Siegel.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Carl Ludwig Siegel.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.
Welcome to Wikipedia. The you made to Gulag has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
« Racial nonsense »
Salut ! - I received your message about « Category:French people of German descent ». (The title of your post to me was perfect!) My extremely strong personal feeling against categorization of anyone by ethnic and religious means is, simply, that it is ethically wrong, and that all ethnic and religious categories should be deleted from Wikipédia, period.
On the other hand, I am a realist. As much as the practice disgusts me personally, there are hundreds of Wikipédiens (probably mostly U.S. citizens) who will scream to keep these absurd, racist accountings and there would be endless « discussions » and « wars » about deleting them.
I posted that comment to the Talk page in a weak moment. (If I could keep a cooler head, I would not have written it in the first place.) So, to answer your direct question to me: If I thought another comment by me would help to fix this offensive practice, I would happily contribute again to the Talk page. But considering there are hundreds racial nonsense categories all over Wikipédia like this, and too many vocal defenders, the effort - like the one by Sisyphus - would be ultimately useless and last an eternity. - - Amicalement, best regards, Charvex (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be misreading the WHOIS information for the IP addresses you have cited. They are not "based at RIPE"; RIPE is actually the Regional Internet Registry that assigned the 220.127.116.11 - 18.104.22.168 IP address range to Deutsche Telekom. Thanks for reporting vandalism! -- The Anome (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Feteketave, I received a message of User:Skäpperöd about a CU-request I'm involved. It seems the reason of the request were contributions to Ilya Ehrenburg and Alexander Grothendieck throughout the last days. In fact, the problem is, I'm not the only one using this computer, my brother does too. I talked to him several times about different WP articles and my activities there and I know, he started to make some minor additions. I can only apologize and assure, I never contributed as an IP and will take care it's not going to happen again. Best regards HerkusMonte (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I understand your viewpoint. If is different from mine, but I don't think I can convince you. If you want to continue this discussion with others, then let's use the Talk page on Leon Trotsky. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Request for help on Eugene O'Neill conflict
As someone who has contributed to the Eugene O'Neill article, perhaps you would be willing to look at the (rather one-sided) discussion on that article's talk page regarding Emerson7's deletion of cited materials, Ah, Wilderness NOT O'Neill's only comedy. I would like to have a Request for Comment process initiated, but must have at least one other editor to have contributed to the discussion before an RfC can be started. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If I were sure at the moment about the title of the book, I had written it. So I would have first to search at the library. I read a few German books by Ingrid Strobl , each of them separated into a few independant chapters. One of this chapters was about the shots at Białystok. My feeling says, it's in the book "Die Angst kam erst danach". By the way, the attendant Haika Grossman once wrote a book about her time in war. ("The underground army") Haikah%22&iknowwhatimean=1. It's really recommendable. But I think, a Polish nationalist censor would also like to shorten some of the text passages. The common impression there is, in all ethnic groups there were some brave men, who were exceptions.
Feketekave, the certain old man thought quite sensibly. Poland as well as Germany faced the problems after WW1 without consolidated democratic traditions. And there were a lot of problems. Pilsudski was a stroke of luck (not only) for Poland in this situation and Gabriel Narutowicz could have been a necessary supplementation. But it was the time of radical views from different directions. A time, when it was possible, that Narutowicz's assassin was perceived as a cult figure. By the way, in Germany it was quite similar with the assassins of Walther Rathenau. One of them, Ernst von Salomon was such a right-wing popular figure, that nobody could dare, to object to his living with a Jewish woman later. This seems somewhat comparable.
- I found this discussion to be overly aggressive, I'm willing to start a new disscussion. I don't think that your last edit was right but I'm willing to discuss it from the begininng, with clean hands and mind, just to give chance for a cease fire. As an act of good will I self revert my last edit on Zamenhof's article--Gilisa (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Feketekave, I've added two additional signed comments about 1906 on my talkpage. You can read there.
Edit-warring at Volksdeutsche
It seems to me that both you and User:Urban XII have been edit-warring on this article, but you are the only one who has made four reverts in 24 hours. If you will undo your last revert, you may avoid a block for 3RR.
While I'm here, I'm officially notifying you of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Remedies which allows admins to use discretionary sanctions on any topics involving Eastern Europe. You should be especially careful to obtain agreement on talk pages before reverting hot-button articles like Volksdeutsche.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines
Expulsion of Germans
You are correct in what you wrote on the Volksdeutsche page, I have argued many times on the Expulsions of Germans page that some of those numbers are ridiculous because lot of German civilians got killed when the warzone literally caught with them (the Nazis didn't allow evacuation of civilians because they considered everybody who tried to escape a deserter). But anyway it's to no avail, no matter how you try to explain that they just want the pumped up the number... Loosmark (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sodalitium Vitae Christianae
I am currently looking for estimates of numbers of German resistance. Since you also commented on that I wonder if you have any sources which could shed a light on this. Right now they have been ridiculously inflated. Your comments are welcome --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Since most wikipedia.org users presumably can't read German, it seems useful to keep the translation.
There are a few further differences in wording between the version you reverted and the one I edited. My main concern here is to avoid statements that are overly strong or non sequiturs. It's clear that some sources have different agendas - we should try to keep neutral. I see your work on the Cantor page has been referred to by another user above.
There was a further issue with a statement that was clearly original research (Cantor's family being allegedly given dispensation to live in a particular area (implying that they needed such dispensation), with no sources being cited), but perhaps we agree on that.
Feketekave (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Feketekave, feel free to edit out the OR, if there's still any left. I agree the section is not perfect, and was originally very OR. But some of your wording, for example "a letter mentions his belief" etc, is not an accurate represention of the sources (e.g. he doesn't mention that he has a belief about his grandparents - he just states it). As for the other editor above, I don't quite understand what his point was. He's angry because I was edit-warring him on another article. I didn't actually write the ancestry section of the article - but I added the sources for the penultimate paragraph. Avaya1 (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also some of the wording that you re-introduced into the article I think I originally wrote (e.g. there were documented statements"). As far as replacing that wording by "there is a document" - I assume that the latter is more accurate, since we only go on to describe that one document? Avaya1 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Avaya,
- This is a delicate issue. Let me just comment on the most recent revert:
- (a) Either wording on Cantor's beliefs about his ancestry seems acceptable to me. The point would be - is Cantor a Cantor scholar? He may himself have had very limited sources on his ancestry. His belief about his paternal ancestors is relevant as a belief, but it is not necessarily a proof of something about them; as far as I know, he was never in Denmark and may not have known his grandparents' milieu.
- (b) The citation on Josef Boehm is in a book by a reputable press. At the same time - I have taken a look at the source - Boehm seems to appear only once in the book, in a secondary clause ("..., while Joachim had been the pupil both of Ferdinand David and of another eminent Jewish violinist, Joseph Boehm"). In the absence of further remarks on Boehm, we do not know what Ezra Mendelssohn means by the label, or how he defines it. I may add that parts of the book read almost like lists of famous people on whom the label "Jew" is systematically attached.
- There's a further citation I can't read, since I don't know Hungarian. Feketekave (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with what's you're saying on (b). The book is published by Cambridge University Press, but it doesn't go into much depth (and the Hungarian source we're taking second-hand from what jinfo.org reports that it says).
- On (a), "states" is more accurate. If it "mentioned his belief" - then the letter would surely say something like "I have a belief that my grandparents...", rather than "My grandparents were born".
- If we want to look for some more sources, possibly we could ask User:All Hallow's Wraith?
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)