User talk:IIIraute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

General of the Cavalry (Germany)

You recenly made a change to General of the Cavalry (Germany) saying the rank was equivalent to General in the US Army. I believe this is incorrect. In descending order, General ranks in the German Army were:

Generalfeldmarschall - equivalent to US General of the Army (5 stars - OF-10)

Generaloberst - equivalent to US General (4 stars - OF-9)

General der Kavallerie (General der Infanterie, General der Artillerie etc) - equivalent to US Lieutenant General (3 stars - OF-8)

Generalleutnant - equivalent to US Major General (two stars - OF-7)

Generalmajor - equivalent to US Brigadier General (one star - OF-6)

Note that the rank below Generalmajor was Oberst (Colonel). Please see Comparative officer ranks of World War II. I have reverted your change in good faith. Hamish59 (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any information/sources, other than wikipedia on this? --IIIraute (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there are the sources used in the wikipedia articles, for example

Reinhard Stumpf: Die Wehrmacht-Elite. Rang- und Herkunftsstruktur der deutschen Generale und Admirale 1933–1945. Harald Boldt Verlag, Boppard am Rhein, 1982. ISBN 3-7646-1815-9.

Andris J. Kursietis: The Wehrmacht at War 1939–1945, Aspekt, Soesterberg/Netherland 1999, ISBN 90-75323-38-7

etc

You could try any of the biographies on The Prussian Machine e.g. Max von Fabeck Or try a web search for, say, "german ranks wwi"; first couple I tired gave me http://www.overthefront.com/WWI-Ranks-German.php or http://www.worldwar1.com/sfgrank.htm etc.

Do you have any information/sources for the change you made? Hamish59 (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

...and where does it say that General der Kavallerie (General der Infanterie, General der Artillerie etc) is equivalent to US Lieutenant General? --IIIraute (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of WP:OR, rank above Colonel / Oberst is Brigadier General / Generalmajor etc Hamish59 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was assuming: WP:OR. Just because the rank above Colonel / Oberst is Brigadier General / Generalmajor, it does not mean that General der Kavallerie is equivalent to US Lieutenant General. Suggesting that a German Lieutenant-General is the same as a US Major-General is not correct. They might have the same or similar position - but it is not the same rank. A Lieutenant-General is always superior in rank to a Major-General. In the Wehrmacht, there was no rank equivalent of todays Brigadier General.

The rank of Generaloberst was created originally for Emperor William I, then Prince of Prussia, because traditionally members of the royal family were not promoted to the rank of a field marshal - hence, what was the situation before this rank was created - what happened to a General of the Cavalry from the Royal Prussian Army in 1871 - now, being General of the Cavalry of the Imperial Army, he wasn't equivalent to a General anymore? In the Wehrmacht, as with the present Russian army, there is a rank-gap (compared to the US Army) between Colonel and Major-General - what does not mean that therefore the rank General der Kavallerie is equivalent to US Lieutenant General, etc. It is the wrong conclusion (and WP:OR). So could you please provide me with an academic/military source that clearly states that the rank "General der Kavallerie, etc." is equivalent to "US Lieutenant General". --IIIraute (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I am going to stick this on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history for their input because I can see that there is not going to be a meeting of minds here. Hamish59 (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#General of the Cavalry (Germany) where Peacemaker67 has provided a couple of references. Hamish59 (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

G'day. It is actually very widely known (as well as being quite commonly misunderstood due to the literal translations leading people astray, this [1] is an obvious example of someone who has not conducted some basic fact checking...). The Bundeswehr corrected it to align with NATO standard rank equivalents when Germany became part of NATO. Hope it's clarified now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

But what is there to "correct"? The rank system was just a different one and had been that way since the Middle Ages. NATO & Bundeswehr were founded after the Wehrmacht/Imperial Army ceased to exist → [2], [3]. --IIIraute (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's rather a moot point, isn't it? Do you accept that the rank General der Kavallerie was equivalent to Lieutenant General? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not a moot point - and I just provided you with sources that refute your claim - so why do you choose to ignore them?--IIIraute (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources you have linked are incorrect. They appear to have made the very common mistake of translating the ranks literally (ie generalleutnant = Lieutenant General, generalmajor = Major General). They do not refute my claim, they are merely sources that contradict the sources that I linked. To refute my claim they would have to prove that my sources were wrong. They don't do that (neither do mine, I might add). Can we get down to a discussion of what is an acceptable source for this contention? Any old book on a German military operation does not qualify as a reliable source for this purpose. It needs a source that clearly shows the hierarchy of German ranks with US equivalents and will need a very high standard of reliability of the author and publishing house as well as the specific topic. I'll bring some sources that meet that criteria so we can discuss further. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This source was written by a German general [4]. Let's talk about this source for starters? And this [5] from a compilation of essays by military historians explicitly states what the rank equivalent in the US Army is. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The "Handbook of Imperial Germany" is not any "old book on a German military operation", but a 330 page strong reference book written by two former officers of the US Army, both in the rank of a Colonel (ret). It is an absolute valid source.

Please note that the rank of Generaloberst was created originally for Emperor William I, then Prince of Prussia, because traditionally members of the royal family were not promoted to the rank of a field marshal - hence, what was the situation before this rank was created - what happened to a General of the Cavalry from the Royal Prussian Army in 1871 - now, being General of the Cavalry of the Imperial Army, he wasn't equivalent to a General anymore? --IIIraute (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And this one published by Cambridge University Press [6] and written by Robert T. Foley who has written many scholarly books on German military history. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Or this [7], another one written by a German general. You'd think he might know? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter - I can show you another 20 sources that say the opposite. My source is more than valid. Why don't you rather answer my question above.--IIIraute (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with your source and what it says about the Imperial Army. That is where it stops though. The sources for the fact that General der Kavallerie in the Wehrmacht was equivalent to the US rank of Lieutenant General is not covered in Robinson and Robinson, so it cannot be a source for the equivalency in WWII. I'm comfortable with you using R&R for what the equivalence was in the Imperial Army, my assertion relates to the Wehrmacht. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it also quite a nonsense to attach a NATO code to a Soviet Warsaw Pact General → Comparative officer ranks of World War II??--IIIraute (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not interested in that issue. I came here to talk about the rank of General der Kavallerie in WWII. The reason why WP indicates equivalents is so that when the ranks are used in articles the equivalent can be provided. Equivalents are expected in MILHIST A Class and FAs. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

IIIraute, I note your latest edit to the General of the Cavalry (Germany) article, removing the "(US equivalent: Lieutenant General)" as "(irrelevant - why compare to US?)". I believe that it is relavent, so I have put it back in. Hamish59 (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I support what Hamish59 has done there, particularly as his edit reflects what the situation was during WWII. However I note that your concern appears to be about the Imperial Army, and have no objection to you adding some additional text regarding what your sources say about the equivalency during that time period. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A. Because this is not the US Army WP. B. The rank did hardly exist in WWII.--IIIraute (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the equivalence to the Imperial Army, I have already said I have no problem with that, and if you have WP:RS for your contention, it should be included in the article alongside Hamish59's point about the equivalence in WWII. However, if you are asserting that it was not the equivalent of US Lieutenant General in WWII, we will have to take this to RfC. Just let me know, and please stop with the edit-warring on this (both of you). It will get sorted out and there is WP:NORUSH. Regards,Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Since this article is about the rank "General of the Cavalry (Germany)" from 1871-1945 it mostly applies to the Imperial Army - the rank only did exist for approx. two years in WWII - therefore Hamish59s edit was factually wrong and not of any benefit for the article. Why give the quivalent to the US rank specifically? Could you please answer this? It is enough to have a link to "Comparative officer ranks of World War II‎".--IIIraute (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why your equivalence cannot be specified for the Imperial Army and Hamish59's be specified for WWII. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but Hamish59 didn't do that - did he? So his edit was wrong!--IIIraute (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't give you an excuse for not modifying his edit to accommodate your own perspective. What you are doing by completely removing his edit is the essence of edit-warring. Please just accommodate the views that have been expressed, and this will go away. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Germans in the Olympics

I have replied to your comment on my talk page. -- Lejman (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

New reply. -- Lejman (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Made another reply -- Lejman (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Made a reply a few hours ago for the record :3 -- Lejman (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Third Reich - Nazi Germany proclamation

The use of parentheses containing "(Nazi Germany)" after "Third Reich" in the sentence "...the Third Reich was proclaimed in 1933." is very suitable. You have undone this edit yet your argument is unjust. Since it is contained within parentheses it does not suggest that it was Nazi Germany that was proclaimed.

In fact, the term "Nazi Germany" is not used at all throughout the entire article regardless that it is the most commonly used term used to denote that era. As much as it was a disastrous part of history, it cannot be ignored. This is Wikipedia, not a propaganda tool - history must be given as it is, not as you'd like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kupraios (talk • contribs) 15:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

please see: Talk:Germany → [8] --IIIraute (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Cloud Atlas

...4. btw, talk about violations - look at your talk page!-i am virtually flipping you off.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

yes, btw, let's talk about violations ↑ - please say no more! thanks, --IIIraute (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cloud Atlas (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Germany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Karl der Grosse

Why should we mention his German name and not his Flemish or Italian name? Or even his modern French name? Isn't the interwiki link to the German Wikipedia enough? Srnec (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The reasons were discussed thoroughly -- see talk-archive → [9]. Why do you think the Encyclopædia Britannica does mention his German name and not his Flemish or Italian name? [10] → [11] --IIIraute (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Re-reading the discussion, I came to a conclusion I went out of line and said a lot of stuff which are not true. I saw it in a certain way and probably in the sub concious felt like any other way is an attack on the Jewish nation. I apologize because it's not true and the fact is you played a role in reaching the concensus, which shows I misjudged your whole intention in the discussion. I always "warm up" to fast in arguments, though it's not an excuse so I apologise. The stuff said about the German nation are also not true. As horrible as the holocaust was, it's not just the Germans who did it (to be fair, in Ukraine and the Baltics there were many local "volunteers"), and it is nothing the young generation needs to be blamed about. The fact is, according to the bible we did some similar stuff to others. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry - apology accepted. I am happy we could solve this. --IIIraute (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Klinsmann

Hi Illraute, I'm not trying to be facetious, but I get Klinsmann in both the gallery and the file itself. It was still Hahn when I downloaded the file to exchange Einstein for someone else a few days ago, but now it is definitely Klinsmann as Germany coach 2005 (as I found out from the Klinsmann article). I don't know why it shows Otto Hahn on your computer and Klinsmann on mine, or how to fix it. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

On the Germans page, I can only see a black and white picture of Otto Hahn.--IIIraute (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mate,

It seems those two weeks of debating might have taken a toll on you. You sure you're not burnt out? You might want to take a break for a day or two from that particular article since communicating with some of the other participants in the discussions so far must not have been easy. - Reanimated X (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I will take your advice anytime soon. thanks. --IIIraute (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't modify archived discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, such was not my intention - must have overlapped, time-wise.--IIIraute (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

...yes, 01:43 and 01:44. --IIIraute (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• No offence taken, its all in a good days fun around these parts. I also didn't mean to cause any, and I am grateful that you did speak the voice of reason during those two weeks. You may consider this message an apology for a few over-heated wordings and especially for ascribing you a viewpoint you apparently do not hold.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'm happy to hear that. I think it was all a bit much for me - just look what happened at that talk-page during the last 10 days - superabominable! --IIIraute (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to (finally) close the discussion with a conclusion

Hi! Here’s what I wrote: [12].

Is there anything you would like to add? I tried to summarize it as much as possible, hope I didn’t skip anything worth mentioning! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Christoph Waltz - Nationality

May I ask why you reverted my changes to the article about Waltz? 91.61.99.184 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

a. because there has been editor consensus for this stable version; b. because your changes are unsourced; c. why stretch the Nationality section unnecessarily? --IIIraute (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

a. there does not seem to be any talk in the discussion about the nationality wording at all. Just "he's German - no, now he's Austrian, too"...

b. My changes are more close to the actual sources, thus I changed it. I will explain: The original sentence was "Waltz received Austrian citizenship in 2010 thus holding citizenships of both Austria and Germany, but considers his German passport a "legal, citizenship law banality"."

I regard this as misleading and wrong for the following reasons:

1. The order of the two clauses suggests a temporal order which does not reflect the truth. He did not first receive the Austrian citizenship and then talked about the German one, but the interview was actually before he got the Austrian citizenship.

2. My sentence is closer to Waltz's actual words - the current sentence is wrong. He did not simply call call his German citizenship a banality, but said that he will "also" become Austrian, adding the fact the he "also" holds the German citizenship would be "banality", not the German passport itself. He defended his "Austrianness" despite not holding the citizenship.

What the current version totally misses is the dispute over his nationality (which is the reason why there's an extra "Nationality" paragraph for Waltz, unlike for other people who just have this info somewhere in-between the rest of their bios), i.e.: 1. The fact of him being a German citizen was totally unknown to the public until 2010, 2. that there was a media debate that started the movement to make him an Austrian citizen in the first place. He didn't get it for 54 years of his life, after all. (The part about the media debate should also be added - my suggested version misses that as well.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.99.184 (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

the current version is fine and doesn't need to be stretched. it states exactly what's in the sources. technically speaking, Waltz is a German-born actor, residing in berlin, who also received Austrian citizenship a couple of years ago. please note: the section is about "nationality", not "ethnicity"! P.S. His father, Johannes Waltz, is German. --IIIraute (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A version that suggests a wrong chronological order and also alters the source is "fine"? I have to disagree strongly. Also, I have no idea what you are trying to say with your ethnicity talk - I never went in that direction at all. 91.61.99.184 (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

it states exactly what is in the source. maybe we should remove his comment, since it doesn't really matter what mr. Waltz has to say anyway. if tomorrow he told us he "felt" Korean, it still wasn't going to change the change the fact that he is German by birth and only received Austrian citizenship in 2010. So, for ca. 54 years he was a German national only, who now also holds Austrian citizenship for ca. 2-3 years. Ethnically he's half German - half Austrian. Hard, bold facts - nothing else. --IIIraute (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the source is put into a misleading context. For an uninformed reader it suggests that he - as the owner of both citizenships - called his German passport a banality. What the reader does not know is that he kept this a secret for over 50 years and the interview was made in the context of journalists questioning him after a newspaper uncovered that he was a German citizen. He defends himself being Austrian despite not being a citizen (and not bothering to apply for over 50 years) - not actually suggesting him not being a German citizen. Also, he did not call the German passport a banality, but the fact that he also owns a German passport. I cannot accept the current phrasing, though I would agree that his feelings normally wouldn't matter. The problem is that the topic of his nationality seems to be a touchy subject, so his own words may actually be of relevance as an exception. If we really deem the topic irrelevant the whole paragraph ought to be removed and the outlines be incorporated into the rest of his bio.

In short it misses or represents: 1. the interview was made at a time when he did not have Austrian citizenship, shortly after the media found out he was a German citizen 2. it drops the words "also", while he himself actually said that he will "also" be Austrian, just like his "also" being German.

It would be better to either completely remove it or just quote his own words fully (basically a single sentence that doesn't require a summary), instead of trying to alter his words to make them sound more like this or that. If the topic is still warranted to get its own paragraph it should also add the part about his citizenship being unknown to the public until 2010 and the media debate the uncovering of the truth started, which eventually lead to his naturalization. Right now it misses the reason why he chose to become Austrian in 2010, even though he talks about legal banalities, which is the natural question you would come up with after reading the current section.91.61.103.108 (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

bring it to the articles' talk page, although the facts speak for themselves. --IIIraute (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus and the Danzig vote

Hello Illraute,

I noticed that you reverted the edits of a user named Skoranka, that changed the names of several places in the Copernicus article from German name (Polish name) to Polish name (German name), contrary to what the Danzig Vote requires, or so it appears to me. After you last reverted the changes another user changed your revert back again. Before I wade in to that hotly fought over article I'd like to hear from you about what might be the best approach. Should I just go in an change things back, according to the Danzig vote? What should be done if somebody claims the Copernicus article is a biography about an _obviously_ Polish person? I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.

Best regards, Larkusix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkusix (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Larkusix, thank you for your message. Yes, there has been a hot debate, although the Danzig Vote clearly states that the names should be in German first: ""In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above."[13]

It was decided, that for the period between 1308 to 1945 the German names are to be used first (see vote#2-5,⇒[14]⇐), and how to implement the result of the vote: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted above."[15] and "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)."[16]

Please also have a look at the "Enforcment" guideline: "Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism"[17]

That the article is not about an obviously Polish person, becomes very obvious when looking the the Nationality section of the Copernicus article, as well as the debate at the talk-page that has been going on since the introduction of this article to the WP. Please have a look at the talk#archive of the Copernicus article → [18] Asserting a nationality to the article clearly violates the editor consensus. Best regards, --IIIraute (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. It seems as if the Google Doodle honoring Copernicus birthday brought some Polish nationalists to the article who disagree with you. An additional pair of eyes on the article, and if time allows an additional reasonable voice would be much needed and appreciated, for sanity's sake.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Great power

You are aware that "right" is actually the default position for images, right? So removing them doesn't actually change anything. I was only reverting it back to the last stable version by User:Moagim, who had removed the clutter (sizes and superflous placement definitions, according to the WP:MOS), but which an IP had subsequently clumsily undone. Your edit summary thus doesn't make any sense and your version is against the WP:MOS. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Adjust the images, if you want - but don't change their position, or the content. Regarding your Stettin edit, maybe you're interested in this → [19]. --IIIraute (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

European cuisine

Great, so now you're taking the line of someone you were reverting on the Germans article? (Collabois) For the food, we are not going to list every country that eats a dish/lays a claim to it being a dish of their country, are we? Hey, I saw Turkish kebab, why don't we change that to Greek/Turkish kebab? Wow, I saw meatballs too, guess those Swedes are not the only ones who thought of making balls out of meat etc. Look, a quick shuffle around the web gives me (German roast-pork) recipes, but the photo descriptor describes it as being typical Austrian (and Bavarian) food, now Bavaria is not the whole of Germany is it, but the point is, if you think it's more a typical German dish then say so, add refs or discuss on talk, but please do not do this Austrian/German/Serbo-Croat/Norwegian dish thing, it's rubbish and confusing and also aesthetically unpleasing.CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There are better choices for "Austrian" dishes (Marillenknödel, Sachertorte), as "Schweinsbraten" is typical Bavarian, i.e. German → by origin, recipe and tradition. --IIIraute (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok so you're the expert, I'm British (we eat shit), living in France (we eat dead things with dead-thing sauce) and almost a vegetarian (we eat love and MyLittlePoneys). I don't care, but Bavarian is Bavarian and not German (ie the whole of Germany), this appears to feature savoury dishes, I would like to avoid every picture having Smurf/Munchkin/Sinteklaas dish as its caption. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't care. It is as much a German dish, as it is Austrian. Like I said, there are better examples, also savoury ones. Bavaria is the largest state of Germany. "Sauerbraten" also does not represent the whole of Germany - you might just choose the "Schweinebraten". So what's your point? The Wiener Schnitzel is the national dish of Austria. --IIIraute (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is, the captions say "Swedish meatballs", although meatballs exist in many cuisines and so on, so one nationality is enough, ok so maybe it's Austrian OR German Schweinsbraten, let's just have Austrian or German and put a better example of typical Austrian cuisine. Look, to illustrate, pizza is Italian, it is served everywhere now, here in France you find Tex-Mex pizzzas, so what are we going to do? Put "Mexican/Texan/Italian pizza"? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is that "Schweinsbraten" also originates from Bavaria - it is an integral part of their custom. I have changed the dish to Wiener Schnitzel, which is the national dish of Austria, and also provides an article/link. I think it is the better choice.--IIIraute (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not loooking for a fight, that was an intelligent edit, that's all I was looking for, otherwise we can get into ethnic squabbling like "yes, but his Serbian grandmother gave him the recipe, so it's a Serbian dish", pleased to have met you. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. My pleasure! --IIIraute (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Helmut Kohl

I am not going to violate 3RR but I intend to remove the blatantly subjective text you insist on inserting into the Kohl article. If it means I have to go to ANI to discuss your editwarring, so be it. The source you cite is woefully insufficient. Quis separabit? 02:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You were the editor removing long-standing material. Go to ANI, fine with me. If you have a problem with this sentence, take it to the talk page first. It is not subjective, but a fact. The Heimatvertriebenen felt not only disappointed, but betrayed → [20]. I mean, seriously? Do you think the Heimatvertriebene were happy about this solution - do you think that's why they organized themselves in the Federation of Expellees. Do you even have any knowlege about this subject? The source is perfectly fine - want another one? What is wrong with the source? So please stop your edit warring and POV pushing - thanks. --IIIraute (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Während die polnische Seite noch weiter auf die Heimatvertriebenen zugehen muß - Worte allein sind eben nicht genug - müssen die ... Verständliche Enttäuschung und Verbitterung in den Reihen der Vertriebenen, die vielfach zu einer Verweigerungshaltung geführt haben, dürfen ..." (Friedbert Pflüger, Winfried Lipscher, Feinde werden Freunde: Von den Schwierigkeiten der deutsch-polnischen Nachbarschaft, Bouvier Verlag, 1993, p.425.

"Kohl hat das Gegenteil getan und dadurch Enttäuschung und Bitterkeit geradezu vorprogrammiert. Dieser innenpolitischen Einschätzung Vogels ist nichts hinzuzufügen. (Jahrestag der Charta der deutschen Heimatvertriebenen am 5....)" Richard Saage, Axel Rüdiger, Feinde werden Freunde: Elemente einer politischen Ideengeschichte der Demokratie:historisch-politische Studien, Duncker & Humblot, 2006, p. 285. --IIIraute (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Pistorius/Reeva Steenkamp

Oscar Pistorius must be treated as innocent until proven guilty. You cannot say that he did shoot Reeva Steenkamp until he is proven guilty in court. 212.139.223.89 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Pistorius has stated in sworn testimony that he killed her - see his affidavit cited - the question of innocence relates to culpability not the fact that he killed her ⇒[21]. --IIIraute (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

German Casualties

Die Luftkriegstoten ohne Fluchtenden 500,000; mit Fluchtenden 635,000.(gebietstand 1942) Fluchtenden: als mit 1.4 v.H der Bevolkerung der Vertreibungsgebiete...Diese Verluste konzentrierten sich in the Haupsache auf die letzen vier Monate des Krieges

Durch Endkampfe ungekommene Zivilpersonnen 20,000

Source: Wirtschaft und Statistik October 1956, pp493-500

My mom was lucky back then she was in New York working on the Manhattan Project--Woogie10w (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The 20,000 is in the population reconciliation and does not appear in the Die Luftkriegstoten schedule, the two are separate. an Apple and an orange [22] [23]--Woogie10w (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And my dad was in Aachen on the first day with the US spearhead[24]--Woogie10w (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Re 20,000 original source reads Durch Endkampfe ungekommene Zivilpersonnen (ohne die in den z. zt. unter fremden gebieten sthenden Ostgebieten des Deutschen Reichs ungekommenen Zivilpersonnen) I translate as As a result of final Battles dead civilians not including civilians in the German eastern regions The notes read 20,000....Praktisch handelt es sich heirbei nur um die im Bundesgiebiet, in Berlin, in SBZ,in Berlin und im Saarland I translate as For all practical purposes in West,East Germany, Berlin & the Saar.

Source: Wirtschaft und Statistik October 1956, pp494-95--Woogie10w (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

German Navy, etc.

What did you mean by your last comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history? Sca (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. There are no reliable sources for the phrasing "Nazi German Kriegsmarine" - therefore such terminology is violating several WP policies. It's pseudo-academic fault of style terminology that should not be used. --IIIraute (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. But I'm not sure what the outcome of the discussion was. Will different terminology be implemented? Sca (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this kind of terminology is unsourced, and therefore in violation with WP:RS and several other WP policies, it can be reverted, i.e. reworded wherever in use. Also the term "Nazi Navy" referenced with "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II vol. I" (published more than 50 years ago) is not permissable → WP:NOTTRUTH → [25]. Should this terminology be used without having non-dated academic WP:RS supporting it, it must be reverted. Please use sources and terminology by the current state of scientific/historiographic knowledge, and you will be on the safe side.--IIIraute (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Now that the WikiProject Military history discussion is closed, the matter was decided by majority consensus anyway: ⇒ There was a clear result in favour of WP:COMMONNAME "Kriegsmarine" and "German Navy" ⇐ please reword wherever necessary. --IIIraute (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to badger you with questions, but does this mean "Kriegsmarine" should be replaced with "German Navy"? If so, should the Kriegsmarine entry be retitled "German Navy in World War II"? Sca (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as both terms are correct - but this might interest you → [26]. --IIIraute (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

TNX. Interesting — although I retain an editor's skepticism about basing 'correctness' on frequency in general usage. But that's another debate. Sca (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That's true, however it shows clearly what terminology is not used at all. Please note, that the terminolgy "Nazi German Kriegsmarine" and "Nazi Kriegsmarine" is unknown, while "Nazi Navy" peaked 1943. As related to WP:COMMONNAME , the result is unambiguous, and correlates with the "WikiProject Military history" majority consensus decision.--IIIraute (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950)

• "The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. Please discuss this issue on the talk page and read the layout guide to make sure the section will be inclusive of all essential details." - The lead should be rewritten, not edited.
• Either "perished" or died after, mostly in Western Germany. You don't "perish" in Bayern 1946. Xx236 (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

More re German Navy

Xyl 54 has posted the following on my talk page. It seems to me that Xyl 54 is trying to circumvent the conclusions of the recent discussion about terminology for the German Navy in WWII.

I notice you made a series of changes to about half-a-dozen U-boat pages following the closure of the MILHIST discussion on this subject.

I don’t know where you got the idea from, but most of the changes exceed the limits set by that discussion in some way. If the term “Nazi German” is not to be used, that does not warrant deleting the link to the article on the state in question. So I have replaced the links (as at U-881, etc).

Nor was the change to the U-530 page warranted; nor those to U-1235, U-548, U-546, or U-864: I have reverted those, as well.

Also (at U-81) the change to the rank, from Oberleutnant to “Senior Lt” is probably original research; we have a page on the rank, and "Oblt" is a recognized abbreviation, so we’d be better off using them, instead. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I replied on his talk page. Sca (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Per this: WTF?

I restored these articles (U-1235, U-548, U-549 and U-864) to the format before Sca changed them (ie [[Nazi Germany|German]] ''[[Kriegsmarine]]'', the status quo ante) as there was nothing wrong with them; and I changed these (U-881, U-858 and U-518) to [[Nazi Germany|German]] [[Kriegsmarine|Navy]] , deleting the offending word "Nazi" from the text (per discussion) but keeping the links (also per discussion).

So what’s the problem? Xyl 54 (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: I've replied to Sca on his talk page, if you care to read it. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW: at U-530, “navy” should be capitalized if you are going to edit it that way. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Per the recent discussion, I will henceforth use "German Navy (Kriegsmarine)" in all references to the German Navy in WWII. With the "Kriegswmarine" link, any readers who wish to know more about the military force at issue can do so via the link. Sca (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of banking may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Computer revert revert?

You have reverted my edit on Computer. Please see the talk:Computer#ABC vs Z in lede if you're interested in keeping the article this way. A D Monroe III (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Hans von Ohain, Frank Whittle". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 01:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Fuggers & Welser in history of banking

Hi IIIraute, I have reverted your changes to the history of banking as I feel the Fugger & Welser are not significant enough to be added to the history of lead, particularly in the context of the whole history of banking. The lead should be concise as possible and it does not add any useful information mentioning banks names unless they stand out. If you feel it should be added in the lead, I feel you need to add some explanation what significant impact the bank had on the development of banking above any other bank or what they added to the history more than just being the second oldest bank in existence. Sargdub (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your Message. I do not agree, as the position of the Medicis was taken over by the Fuggers and Welsers. They came to control much of the European economy and to dominate international high finance. --IIIraute (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I have responded there. FactStraight (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christoph Waltz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gravy Train (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Asiaten-Kenner

Moin! Kannst du Asiaten-Kenner sperren? Scheint mir ein Troll zu sein, er ist gerade auf zahlreiche meiner Editierungen losgegangen und hat sinnlos in der Gegend umher revertiert. VG, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, bin kein Admin - allerdings hat sich Asiaten-kenner auf jeden Fall schon per Wikipedia:Edit warring (Template:Uw-3rr) für eine kleine Auszeit qualifiziert - aber im Moment herrscht ja Ruhe. --IIIraute (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Der Junge hat sich offenkundig "von selbst erledigt". ;) VG, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Technology during World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Apology

I just wish to apologize to you. I've made an awful mistake on the Rush article. It seems the producer was talking about independent of the US studios, and has used some vague language "it is undeniably a British film" that has confused the issue. However, he is clearly discussing the issue solely in respect of the American studios. I still maintain that The Guardian is a reliable source in this instance, but for everything else I am so sorry. Betty Logan (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We just had an edit-conflict on the Rush talk page - and now on my talk-page:

Eaton speaks about the US studio!

New York Times clearly states; Country: Germany, United Kingdom [27]

Toronto International Film Festival clearly states; Country: United Kingdom, Germany [28]

The Guardian clearly states; Country: Rest of the world [29]

Your own source clearly states; Country: Rest of the world [30]

The producers include Hürth-based action concept Film- und Stuntproduktion, Egoli Tossell Film. The Film- und Medienstiftung NRW funded the film with €1.35 million, additional funding was provided by MFG Filmförderung Baden-Württemberg and the German Federal Film Fund (DFFF).[31]

... no problem - glad we could get this solved. No hard feelings! --IIIraute (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I was the editor who removed "United States" two months ago → [32] --IIIraute (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have burned through your three reverts for the next 24 hours. If something needs reverting on that page in the next 24 hours drop me a note and I will take care of it; it's the least I can do in the circumstances. Betty Logan (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries! - Thank you for your friendly message. Take good care, --IIIraute (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Slovak House in Sochi

http://spectator.sme.sk/articles/view/52795/2/slovak_athletes_set_for_sochi.html However, the daily later wrote that owners of Tatravagónka firm Alexej Beljajev and Michal Lazar intervened and reportedly found a suitable space in the railway station. The Roko ad agency will be responsible for arranging the representation spaces and the SOV will pay nothing, Souček said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.236.166 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a current source/website for this information - confirming that there is a Slovak Hpuse - preferably in English? --IIIraute (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship.2FPiotrus_3.E2.80.8E_edit_warring. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited River surfing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queenstown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Germany VS Third Reich discussion needs your voice

You are invited to participate in the Nazi Germany VS Third Reich discussion Axelode (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

mistake?

[33]? Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

IIIraute, I have just redacted parts of your message which, in my opinion, violated WP:ASPERSIONS. This is an admin action under WP:DIGWUREN, so, please, do not revert without discussing the issue with me beforehand.

I have however tried to maintain your points concerning the merits of the edits in question. If you believe something I have removed is necessary to get your point across (other than the eneric Volunteer Marek is a bad person and a sockmaster), please let me know and I'll try to restore it. As a side note, checkuser confirms I that Elizabeth Cumberbatch does not appear to be a sock of Volunteer Marek. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Civility Barnstar
		Your overall kindness and helpfulness towards me while we've been working on Rush has been immensely admirable and very much appreciated. Keep up the good work! Corvoe (speak to me) 11:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandal has returned

Just to let you know that the nationalist vandal has returned to Template:List of Great powers by date after a few months' absence. Argovian (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'll keep an eye on it. --IIIraute (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ASmallWorld, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vogue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Genre discussion

Just to clarify, if you want to discuss my wiki skills. Maybe take it to mine or your talk page, not one that doesn't relate to the film. I made two edits to the country listing because I thought the reason why I edited them was misunderstood. It wasn't, I took it to a talk page. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

DB Schenker UK

Sorry - I don't seem to be explaining the point - references are not needed - the issue was that

• a. the lead section now says TWICE that the company is owned by DB
• b. the status of Freighliner is not directly relevant (to an article about EWS), and should not be in the lead section of this article.

Prof.Haddock, thank you for your message: The first sentence in the lead section should describe what DB Schenker Rail (UK) is, i.e. "the largest UK rail freight operator" that is "a wholly owned subsidiary of the German Deutsche Bahn AG", followed by headquaters, location, etc; because that's exactly what "DB Schenker UK" is.

I have provided the second reference, because there DB Schenker UK (as a legal entity) describe themselves to the House of Commons as to who they are, with the words "DB Schenker is the largest UK rail freight operator ... DB Schenker is wholly owned by Deutsche Bahn AG ..."

The next two paragraphs of the lead give a short introduction, i.e. the history of the company.

That's the reason why DB is mentioned twice: once for being the parent - and later on to describe how it happened. It is even less necessary to mention twice that the company once was called "EWS". Ergo, according to your argument we would also have to delete the EWS sentence from the first paragraph.

The Freightliner content was already there - I only gave it a rewrite. Personally, I think that info is useful, but I don't mind if you want to have it removed. --IIIraute (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Prof.Haddock, I have changed the first paragraph:

DB Schenker Rail (UK) is the British rail branch of DB Schenker - it is the largest UK rail freight operator, and a wholly owned subsidiary of the German Deutsche Bahn AG. Headquartered in Doncaster, England, before 2009 the company was known as English, Welsh and Scottish Railway (EWS).

--IIIraute (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ok, thank you and sorry for the trouble - I don't think the Freightliner info is relavent to the lead, but instead of deleting I've made it a note. Moved the "wholly owned" reference to the infobox (note I think this was already referenced in the history section.) Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry...

I'm sorry if I was rude to you yesterday. --Kutsuit (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No hard feelings! --IIIraute (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it alright...

Hi there, IIIraute. When addressing you, is it alright if I called you "my dear"? An admin has told me not to address you like that. I just wanted to know if it's alright with you? It was in no way meant to be negative. I say it all the time to my friends, and I want us to be friends as well. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

--Nadia (Kutsuit), I think we both know that this was not only about you, calling me "my dear". --IIIraute (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I know. Can we be friends though? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Wishing to be friends is quick work, but friendship is a slow ripening fruit."

― Aristotle ―

--IIIraute (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The Grimm BLP

Please read the prior discussions about the FUCKING quotes and their presence in any BLP at Grimm and at BLP/N. Cheers, Collect (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I know - yet, you are still edit warring and in breach of 3RR (several times). Why not find a solution similar to that of the other quote; i.e. get rid of the expletive part, but retain content. --IIIraute (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Kindly note the "status quo ante" was exactly what I was restoring and which gave consensus version of the material as previously discussed t BLP/N and the article talk page. -- Nomo made the "bold" edit, not I. Also note that I am at 3RR -- only if you count the edit which was "not utile" saying he was succeeded in Congress by Charles Rangel. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Collect, you did remove the content first Also: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." --IIIraute (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)