User talk:Olessi/Archive01

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers 12 June 2005 to 17 November 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary. Thank you. Olessi 06:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If a conversation is spread across the talk pages of multiple users, I take
the liberty to copy related snippets to this talk page. Some comments were not
directly written on this page, but are always shown in the correct context.
Formatting may be adjusted for consistency.

Impersonator

Hi. I got your email. It seems the problem has been dealt with already. In the future, you can bring this up at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard if there is another impersonator. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 17:59, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Olessi 23:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Charleroi / Karelskoning

I saw you reincluded "Karelskoning" as a Dutch variant in "Names of European cities in different languages". Certainly, the article is about historical variants too. According to the guidelines at the top of the article, historical variants and former names should be listed last. And personally I'd prefer them to be explicitly labeled as such too. But that's not quite the point. The ting is, there's simply no evidence whatsoever that Karelskoning ever has been used in the Dutch language. If it had been, there should be traces of it in Belgian or Dutch reference works, history books, documents and the like. Can you quote any? Mimse 10:48:30, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

I've checked the reference book from E. De Seyn (history and geografy of the Belgian municipalities - 1938) which is generally accepted as the reference book. The name Karelskoning is never mentioned as traduction. Karelskoning must be removed. Sunshineboy 19:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed at User talk:Mimse two days ago that it should be removed. Olessi 20:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nösnerland

I noticed you had done some work on the Ţara Bârsei page, so you might be interested in the Nösnerland article I recently started with the Burzenland article as a base. The Nösnerland was the other area of early settlement of the Transylvania Saxons. Any additional information (or relevant articles) would be appreciated. Would you happen to be able to find out the proper Romanian/Hungarian names for the region? Olessi 20:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not the best bet here: I don't speak Hungarian and have only intermediate Romanian. I mostly watch these pages to try to prevent takeovers by chauvinists from either nationality. But I'll keep an eye on it & see if I can be helpful. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

New articles

Dear Olessi, don't forget to announce new Russia-related articles here. Best wishes, Ghirlandajo 07:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I didn't know about that page. Olessi 20:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

recent Gdansk/Vote edit wars

I have recently made an advisory statement to User:Schwartz und Weiss at Gdansk.2FVote to hopefully calm things down a bit. Olessi 17:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I do not want to engage in the revert wars and always prefer a dispute instead of forced edits. --Lysy ^(talk) 18:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lebus

Howdy again! I recently created a Lebus article and grabbed the picture of its coat of arms from the Lubusz article. Unfortunately, I don't speak Polish; could you please verify for me that the picture is in the public domain and that I put the right coding on it? Olessi 21:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. BTW, the pic was uploaded to Polish wiki from German wiki, so you might want to consult the latter. Halibu tt 18:15, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying that for me, and good work on the Emilia Plater compromise. I hope that solution holds; I have been having similarly frustrating discussions at Talk:Warmia that have made me want to read How to deal with Poles again. Olessi 04:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandýs nad Labem-Stará Boleslav - thanks

Thanks for creating the article (among others). I am glad there are more people adding such towns. Pavel Vozenilek 18:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words! I like to learn about the smaller cities and towns from throughout central Europe, but a lot of the time there is not much information about them available in English. Usually I translate from the German wiki, but many of those articles aren't terribly detailed either. Are there any decent-sized Czech towns that do not at least have stubs yet? Olessi 21:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All decent sized Czech towns have article though their quality isn't anything spectacular. I decided to create minimal stub for every town and every village here so it will be easier for more knowledgeable people to put flesh in. Right now I near 1% :-o

About available info in English: some cities have English version of their webpages. Problem of many German pages is that their author had a book which ends somewhere in 19th century: while coverage of medieval times is thorough it looks as the city got plagued and abandoned later. Pavel Vozenilek 22:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jizera River

The name of the river is w/o diacritics. I tried to move it back but this is not possible (for me as non-admin). Either an admin needs to be asked or the text needs to be copied manually back (thus loosing history). Pavel Vozenilek 00:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw "Jizerá" on the German Wiki and assumed it was correct; I have since fixed it at de:Iser. I'm going to fix all of the links I have been "correcting". Sorry! Olessi 00:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Once again, I apologize for the extra trouble. Also, I am considering making an article for Rožmberk nad Vltavou- would that be better described as a castle, town, or village? Olessi 00:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. -- Curps 10:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rožmberk nad Vltavou

Rožmberk nad Vltavou [1] is a village (official status today) but it had township rights in Middle Ages. The castle here [2] (Java applet) looks in one word impressive. I found quite lot of history [3] but all in Czech. I am mere programmer so my vocabulary is quite lacking to do thorough translate. Pavel Vozenilek 00:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oki, thanks. I had looked it up on Yahoo a few weeks ago and found some tourist sites in English, but they were all about the castle. I'll try to add enough for a decent stub in the next few days. It seems best to split it up between Rožmberk nad Vltavou (village article) and Rožmberk Castle if enough information is available. Olessi 01:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend splitting the article up into a castle article and a village article; the village and the castle are closely linked to each other. One more reason is the fact that readers will most certainly want to read about both the village and the castle. I would write one single article, Rožmberk nad Vltavou, starting with

Rožmberk nad Vltavou is a Czech village, known chiefly for its castle...

If the unspeakable happens and contributors massively flood the article with information, we can always split the article up later. As for Pavel's comment on his language skills, I am also a mere programmer, but I'm afraid my Czech vocabulary is somewhat limited to do a thorough translate. :-) (bydlim tady uz tri roky, ale cestina me jeste nejde dokonale...)

In any case, I'd like to contribute, but right now don't really have enough time to go starting articles. If you do create the article, please drop me a line on my talk page and I'll see what I can add! --Netvor | T | C 12:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belated welcome back

I noticed today that you have returned to WP in the last few weeks after an absence of several months. Welcome back! Olessi 19:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your note on my talk page. You may be interested in my recent addition to John Kenney's talk page. Sca 18:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was already taken care of. Olessi 00:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ştefan cel Mare move

I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Ştefan cel Mare concerning a move to Stephen the Great, similar to that of Mihai Viteazul and Michael the Brave. Your input would be appreciated. Olessi 22:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 86.105.71.34 has mentioned you at User talk:Criztu. Olessi 18:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me, I gave my opinion (though you probably noticed anyway). Thanks also for drawing my attention to that note. A remarkable one, though I have had some anonymous editors say much nastier things about me than that... :) Kiss L 09:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That same user also left a note for Jmabel. I don't speak Romanian, so I don't know what he said about you. Considering his edit history and style, I don't expect it was complimentary ;-) Olessi 20:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't :) To be sure, I don't speak Romanian either, but I have quite a few Transylvanian Hungarian colleagues who do. Basically, he/she is alleging that I am denigrating Romania, but as there is nothing specific to the allegation, I guess I can let it lie... Kiss L 15:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saxons of Romania

Moin Moin! I have moved the content of Saxons of Romania to the pre-existing Transylvanian Saxons article. Tschüß! Olessi 20:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for moving of Saxons of Romania article, it is ok. {unattributed remark posted by Kaiser 747 04:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Ava Vincent images

Hello! I noticed that you have removed the links to DVD covers from the Ava Vincent article. If I reduce the size of those images to thumbnail size (so that there is no way they could be duplicated for pirating purposes), would that be considered acceptable fair-use? Olessi 00:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think not. As it was explained to me, CD- book- and DVD-covers qualify as free use when they illustrate the CD, book or DVD (more or less advertising the product). I think it would be ok if you put the images on articles reviewing the films.

But do note that I am not an expert -- so if you have questions, I'd recommend asking at the Wikipedia:Village Pump. // Fred-Chess 01:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have based my image uploading based on a conversation I had with Lupo last month. From Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags: "Covers of various media - note all of these require a reduced-quality image, insufficient for quality reproduction or bootlegging purposes, and also that they illustrate articles about the media item itself, not a tangentially related subject." I do not know if a gallery would be considered such a subject. I suppose asking the Village Pump would be the best bet. Olessi 01:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have posted the inquiry at Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags. Olessi 02:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden

Hey Halibutt! I am fascinated with placenames in different languages and ideally would like to include as many names for a city as possible, space permitting (of course, that is why there is this article). Unfortunately, the only language I can translate is German, so I am limited in the variety of names I can add at this point. I do try to add names in languages other than German when I find them, however.

I have unfortunately come to realize that many contributors are not as accepting of including as many names as me. I was not around for the Gdańsk Vote and do disagree with some of the results. For instance, I personally feel that the city should be referred to as Gdańsk until 1772, but according to the Vote that is not to be. The Vote is frequently disputed and interpreted differently, especially the phrase "share a history between Germany and Poland". I believe that we share the same interpretation of that phrase (see your earlier discussion at Talk:Dresden and my earlier discussion at Talk:Warmia).

Regarding Dresden: I personally support your rationale for the inclusion of Drezno in the article. I have read the Talk page, however, and the majority of contributors there were resistant to the inclusion of Drezno. I count six active contributors opposing it (Mackensen, Eugene van der Pijll, John Kenney, Philip Baird Shearer, Saintswithin, & JohnDBuell {discounting Zivinbudas}) and only you supporting it. You had said on the Talk page "But what does the number of those who oppose me have to do with the voting results?" The Vote is not a Wiki-Policy, but a Compromise. Unfortunately, this compromise is not detailed enough and, as I have said, open to interpretation. Since out of 7 participants in the discussion, 6 came to similar conclusions and only 1 to a differing conclusion, that indicates to me community consensus regarding this application of "shared history". Considering that there was a two month gap between the reinclusion of Drezno, it seemed to me that you and they had achieved a consensus.

Therefore, when I saw that Molobo had reintroduced Drezno to the intro, I removed it as per the aforementioned consensus. However, to (naively) avert a revert war and because I felt that the name should be in the article somewhere, I followed JohnDBuell's suggestion and added Drezno into a relevant spot in the History section.

Calling my removal of controversial information a Violation of a Vote (interpreted differently than you by the majority), when you have felt it unimportant for two months, was very unbecoming of you, IMO, especially since I had actively tried to find a compromise.

I trust your contributions and have always believed that you edit out of good faith. I do not have that same confidence in some other posters, and I understand your frustration with certain nationalistic contributors (of various origin) as they frustrate me as well. I hope that you would consider my edits to be in good faith. If I have contributed faulty information, then please provide constructive criticism and do not assume that I have bad intentions. Olessi 02:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Sorry if my edit comments seemed rude or inadequate, I didn't mean to offend anyone. As a matter of fact your compromise version suits me fine. However, the case of Dresden is probably the only case where I could attract attention to the - still unresolved - problem of Talk:Gdańsk ruling, which I find unfair. Please take note that, contrary to what john k. alleged, drawing attention is not yet using WP to prove a point.

Anyway, I won't make any further edits to the article on Dreden - at least not until the discussion on one-sided "law" of Talk:Gdańsk rule is restarted. Have a nice day! Halibu tt 14:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses! I am optimistic that the community can find a consensus and avoid all of these headaches in the future. :-) Olessi 06:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I will not act the same way certain German contributors did some time ago. BTW, their behaviour was the reason we started seeking some compromise solution at the Talk:Gdańsk - and finally what came out of it is the voting. It solved many issues and opened up many new ones. Anyway, I was interested in solving this problem for some 2 years now (check the archives of Talk:Gdańsk. Good lord, so much time lost...), but I'm losing hope it is possible at all. It seems to me that everything is ok as long as certain rules apply only to one side while the other is unaffected. Sad but true, I'm afraid.

Anyway, there are no grave problems now as most of the actively pro-German contributors left wiki and the revert wars over naming of, for instance, Vistula river are a history. However, as soon as some moron sparks out, I believe that the whole mess will start again, in articles on German cities as well. Halibu tt 23:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Double names only for Polish cities and locations ?

"If you really are interested in resolving this issue, I hope that you would not start adding Polish names to German-related articles across Wikipedia until the community discusses it; doing so now would be a sure way to start undesired revert wars" This happens constantly in Polish related articles where German names are given without disussion and any attempt to revert this ends with argument "look at Gdansk vote".As you can see using the same method towards German locations sharing history with Poland was met with immediately resistance and was called "causing conflict". But why should a city that was part of Polish fief and de facto part of Commonwealth not be called a Polish name ? I do not accuse you, but I am afraid there are double standards here. In any case its evident that the Gdansk vote is flawed in this aspect. --Molobo 20:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, I agree with you that the vote is flawed and must be further clarified. I am asking that editors wait until the discussion initiated by User:Piotrus reveals most of what the community wants. Olessi 21:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm the Gdansk_Vote is seriously flawed in many aspects.One of which is that its effects are only disrupting the clarity of the articles.People taking part in the vote know why the names differ in such strange way from other articles, but a neutral user of Wiki, say from China, or Brasil, is clueless as to why the name is written in such way, and why, he neither knows what language the second name is.What do you think ?--Molobo 20:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Warmia

"population subjugated and subjected to a policy of assimilation. " The local population was either murdered or enslaved. http://www.cf.ac.uk/hisar/people/hn/MilitaryOrders/TEUTONIC.html Be assured that I will add everything from that documents in articles about Warmia, Teutonic Order and Prussia. This information is also interesting : http://www.chivalricorders.org/vatican/teutonic.htm

Enslavement of pagan prisoners by the knights was likewise seen as perfectly acceptable, non-Christians not being considered to have the same rights as Christians. A description by an Austrian poet, Peter Suchenwirt, quoted by Ekdahl, [13] well illustrates these horrifying events, not so dissimilar, perhaps, to recent events in Bosnia Herzegovina: "Women and children were taken captive; What a jolly medley could be seen: Many a woman could be seen, Two children tied to her body, One behind and one in front; On a horse without spurs Barefoot had they ridden here; The heathens were made to suffer: Many were captured and in every case, Were their hands tied together They were led off, all tied up - Just like hunting dogs". One can only wonder at the astonishing use of the word "jolly"! These slaves were then used to supplement the local labor force but, usefully did not require payment and so were often preferred to the Prussian natives who needed to be paid or granted land. By enslaving the Lithuanian prisoners as much needed manual laborers, there ceased to be any incentive to convert them as, once they became Christians, they could no longer be abusesd in this fashion. --Molobo 21:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of the actions of the knights and have read similar disconcerting things before[4]. I have been basing my additions concerning the Order from Eric Christiansen's The Northern Crusades, a very reasonable survey of the region. Last year I read William Urban's Teutonic Knights: A Military History, but found him rather unscholarly and very sympathetic toward the knights. The activity of the knights, however, should be dealt with in detail on their individual article; I don't personally see the need to rehash the history of the knights' conquest of Prussia every time in regional articles such as Warmia. IMO, a mere summary like the following is more fitting:

"In the 13th century Warmia was invaded by the Teutonic Knights; as these crusaders conquered the region, they killed much of the local population and treated the rest as inferior. In 1242 the papal legate William of Modena created..."

If the reader then wants to learn more about the knights, that info is available in the relevant article. I hope that you would not add "everything" from this link, as that would be rather tedious for the average Wiki reader to read.

I see you have readded the controversial information into the Warmia article. The extensive quote you have pasted there does not belong on the Warmia page. If it belongs on Wikipedia at all, it belongs on the Teutonic Knights article. I consider that quote addition to Warmia to be very poorly chosen. There is also no need to add in another comment about "Germanic colonists", as there has already been information in that article about it for almost two years. Olessi 23:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is nothing wrong putting information (that is widely available) such as violation of treaties, slave trade and genocide that accompanied the creation of Teutonic Order state by Teutonic Knights and their settlement of the area that they cleansed ethnicly, by colonist from Germanic ethnic groups. Why should it be ignored ? Also it was rather uniformative to start the history of the region from Teutonic conquest and crusade forgetting its history before the invasion. --Molobo 23:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that historians dispute the treaties signed by the Knights, the Polish princes, the Church, and the Emperor. In order to be NPOV, I mentioned that they were disputed instead of definitely posting one way or the other.

I am wary of using the term "genocide". The Wiki definition of genocide (essentially the elimination of a culture through various means) is fitting. Unfortunately, I think that to most English-speakers genocide = extermination ("murder of every Prussian"), which is not my understanding of the Prussian situation. Rather, it seemed to be a combination of killings until the natives were subdued, followed by generations of Cultural assimilation of the survivors. Genocide did take place, but it was not through extermination, but a combination of means. I hope I have been able to convey the difference in my mind andy why I am cautious of using that term.

I have no problem with including information prior to the German conquest; you'll notice that I have never removed such information. What I took exception to is including information that should be in the Teutonic Knights main article instead. Unless there is a History of Warmia started, the History section of Warmia should be concise and not duplicate detailed information found in other articles. Olessi 00:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"as there has already been information in that article about it for almost two years." My information based on scholary sources is about the fact that after Prussians were murdered or enslaved, Teutonic Knights settled their former settlements and territories with Germanic colonists.It is a different information.--Molobo 23:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For a while it has read, "Between the 13th and 17th centuries Warmia as well as other parts of Prussia were colonised by Germans in the north and Poles in the south." I don't see much difference between that and what you added, aside from the mention of Polish settlers. Considering that the article mentions that the natives were killed/enserfed, it seems like common sense to me that German colonists would be replacing the natives. Doesn't it seem better to expand upon the pre-existing sentence about German/Polish colonists instead of mentioning it in two separate paragraphs? Olessi 04:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I urge you not to induce other editors to invoke the controversial Gdansk Vote until the community discuss the vote again. Please cease requests such as these: [5], [6], [7]. Many editors have expressed their disapproval of the vote in recent days. I know that you are unhappy with the Gdansk Vote, but for you to suddenly use it to justify edits which would be controversial "at the current moment" does not seem like a good idea. Please wait until this issue is resolved through a community discussion. Olessi 23:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I myself am thinking about formulating the question as best as possible so that the Gdansk Vote will be revoked. Molobo 23:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly some people are still pushing German names of Polish locations that are disputable. Molobo 12:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And sadly some people are still pushing Polish names of German locations that are disputable. Both are unfortunate, and I am optimistic that both will stop. :-) Olessi 04:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to "induce" me as much as You want! Great suggestion! Space Cadet 01:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sommerfeld

Hi,

just to ask you to be a little more careful when you change a redirect. For example, for this page, Arnold Sommerfeld is one of the more important physicist of the 20th century while the polish town is almost unknown. You would have better create a disambiguation page. According to your number of edits, I just think it's a mistake ;-).

Best

Poppypetty 05:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that to my attention! I did not know about Arnold Sommerfeld before- interesting reading. Thank you for creating the disambig page! Olessi 05:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You violated 3R Rule

At the Warmia article. Molobo 10:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...

Edit 1: No reversion there. I retained your information, but copyedited it, fixed your grammar, and tried to make the text neutral and encyclopedic. The only info I did not keep was the treaty-breaking. If you compare my edit to what was there before you made the additions as such [8], you can see that I did NOT revert at all.
Edit 2: Again, no reversion. I was trying to make the text more NPOV. If you compare my first edit to my second one as such [9], you can again see that I did NOT revert. You'll notice that I retained the information about the duplicitous actions of the knights, as well as their policy toward the Prussian natives. I did keep the information about the knights breaking treaties, I just made it NPOV.
Edit 3. I removed your poorly placed quote, I removed your duplicate mention of German colonists, and I readded the link to Pope Gregory IX that you had deleted. I again retained the relevant information, but tried to rephrase it into a more NPOV format. Compare this edit to edit 2 as such [10]: not a revert. I again tried to make rephrase the treaty section in hopes of a compromise.

I would hope that you would be able to recognize that I have been retaining the information you have added, such as the bloody past of the knights, just writing it in a more encyclopedic fashion. Every edit that I have made to that article in the last few days has been copyediting or trying to come to a compromise. On the other hand, I don't understand why you felt the need to add that poorly placed quote. Olessi 18:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishopric of Warmia

Hello Chris! Would you be able to move Bishopric of Warmia to Archbishopric of Warmia? I can't change it myself, since the redirect already exists. You also might want to add your thoughts on Talk:Weissenburg in Bayern about a move to Weißenburg in Bayern. Olessi 17:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

moved. Thanks for the info on weissenburg -- Chris 73 Talk 17:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of country names in various languages under attack !!!

Dear Olessi,

The List of country names in various languages, List of European regions with alternative names, List of European cities with alternative names, List of European rivers with alternative names, and others, have come under attack by a certain Mikka, who, having just stumbled into all these lists, having found them of little use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, has then promptly filed a petition to delete the lists in question.

Please cast your vote to keep these valuable, informative, and indeed fascinating lists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country names in various languages.

Thanks! Pasquale 16:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst, Graf von Mansfeld

Looks like a good start for the German nobility article. Ernst, Graf von Mansfield needs to have his last name changed from Mansfield to Mansfeld; however, should the article be at Ernst, Graf von Mansfeld, Ernst, Count of Mansfeld, Count Ernst of Mansfeld, or Ernst von Mansfeld (which the German wiki uses)? There doesn't seem to be a set naming system at Category:German nobility. Olessi 17:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A quick google count for english language sites: Ernst von Mansfeld: 1910 hits, Ernst Graf von Mansfeld 629 hits, Ernst Count of Mansfeld 11 hits, Count Ernst of Mansfeld 7 hits. Hence i would go with Ernst von Mansfeld, but mention all the other variants in the article. But otherwise any version is fine by me. -- Chris 73 Talk 19:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the whole thing to Ernst von Mansfeld, and created redirects. Wikipedia:Requested moves is needed only if you cannot move the page yourself, or if it is a controversial move, which I think (hope) this one wasn't. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 06:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for your assistance! Olessi 07:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfeld in the Polish-Swedish War

You had inquired during the summer if the Mansfeld of the P-S War was the Mansfeld from the 30 Years War. I have found nothing that indicates they are the same person. This Swedish link does mention a "Feltmarschalken Gref Philip af Mansfeld" in a 1634 campaign; it is possible that it is the officer from before, although the age difference makes it improbable. You might be interested in this link, but I do not know in what context "Fryderyk Joachim Mansfeld" is used as I do not speak Polish. It could be a good lead, however. Olessi 04:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful if we can track genealogy of Mansfeld family and create an article on Ernst von Mansfeld father, Peter Ernst von Mansfeld ([11]). The Polish links are useful as they give first names of our Mansfeld: Fryderyk Joachim Mansfeld (Joachim Frederick Mansfeld/Frederick Joachim Mansfeld/Joachim Mansfeld/Frederick Mansfeld?), so it is likely he is some other member of this family (if related at all). I added info from Polish articles you found to the Polish-Swedish War, but I still cannot find enough info on Frederick Mansfeld. Btw, for the string Joachim Frederick we seem to get Joachim Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg (who did actually live in the same timeframe, dying in 1608). Perhaps search with other transliteration (German? Swedish? English?) can reveal more info.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Daugavgriva, see Talk:Arkhangelsk. I am confused... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daugravgriva (German Dünamünde) is a fortress currently within the borders of the city of Riga. It seems like it was founded as a cloister and then fortified by the Livonian Order and Bishops of Riga. Count Bernhard II of Lippe became the abbot of it in the early 13th century. These links all mention it a little: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Olessi 08:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nesterovs

Hello! According to the Nesterov article, the town was renamed that from Stallupönen after Sergey Nesterov, a World War II pilot. However, the German wiki says that the town was renamed after Pyotr Nesterov, a World War I pilot. I have been trying to find out which is true, but found nothing on yahoo about a WWII pilot Sergey Nesterov. Unfortunately, I do not speak Russian and am therefore limited in my searching abilities. At your leisure, could you investigate and see which is the correct source? Olessi 03:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The German wiki obviously confused Nesterov in Kaliningrad Oblast with Nesterov (now Zhovkva) near Lviv in Ukraine. The latter town was named after Pyotr Nesterov, who died near Zhovkva during the WWI. The former town was named after Colonel Sergey Nesterov (1906-44), who died "fighting for the town's liberation from the Nazis", as the Great Soviet Encyclopedia says. In short, the current data in the English wiki is quite alright. --Ghirlandajo 07:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for investigating that for me. Olessi 05:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.