User talk:Olessi/Archive06

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

This archive page covers 13 May 2007 to 16 March 2008.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary. Thank you.

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.

Gomel

Do you agree with the current name of the page? --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly familiar with the titling of Belarusian cities regarding WP:NCCN and transliteration styles, so I'll need to investigate further when I have regular access. Olessi 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on WP:CYR and WP:NC:CITY, Gomel seems to be the best title instead of Homel or variations thereof. Google Books searches indicate to me that Gomel is the preferred spelling in English. Olessi 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vršac

Why you reverted my edits in Vršac and Bela Crkva articles without any explanation? Current version of the article is ugly and it disrupt main story line of the article. Do you believe that readers cannot find "Name" section by themselves so that you have to point them into this direction? PANONIAN 15:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Names link in the introduction is a compromise that has been worked out at WP:NCGN by many users over a considerable period of time. I was simply bringing the articles in line with the guidelines. Olessi 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Low and High Prussian

Hello. I wonder, why you removed from Low and High Prussian dialects that they were simply named as Prussian? Yes, linguists divides in such dialects, but this is a linguistic classification. Scientific and everyday classification are not adequate. --Vulpes vulpes 07:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles stated that High and Low Prussian are each known as "Prussian" (without any inline sourcing) and did not specify who calls the dialects simply "Prussian". The German wikipedia articles do not state that the dialects are simply called "Preußisch". I will add CN templates so that clarification can be provided. Olessi 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody calls these nearly extinct dialects now as prussian, because there are no germans in former East Prussia now. But it was called so, external link [1] shows instead Low Prussian is written simply - Preussisch. People in everyday use not named (and how many americans names own dialect in full name in everyday use?) own dialect in scientific style. Of course, this is not a scientific designation. Vulpes vulpes 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in Wikipedia ultimately should be sourced as per WP:V. Stating that High Prussian is sometimes known as "Prussian" seems to be WP:OR to me if no source is provided. I have no problems with mentioning at Low Prussian that it is simply called "Prussian" at times, as the dialect map mentions that. Olessi 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lăzărescu

Hi! Someone moved The Death of Mr. Lazarescu back to The Death of Mr. Lăzărescu. I started a discussion on the name at Talk:The Death of Mr. Lăzărescu. As you moved it originally to "Lazarescu", would you like to contribute to the discussion? AdamSmithee 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prague Spring for FA?

Dobry den, Olessi:

I don't think many people saw my message on the Czech WikiProject talk page, so now I'm writing to people individually. ;-) I have an idea to share with you: last year, a group of editors (in which I participated) turned Hungarian Revolution of 1956 from an utter worthless mess into an excellent Featured Article, and got it on the Main Page on the 50th anniversary of the uprising. With the 40th anniversary of 1968 coming up next spring, I would love to repeat that success with Prague Spring. I know it's a long time until the actual anniversary, but the sooner we start, the better. (It got pretty hectic with 56, we started in August and the anniversary was in October, which led to a mad dash to the finish--we barely made it.) Would you be interested in working on this? K. Lásztocska 19:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at it every so often, but I anticipate my Internet-access will be limited for the foreseeable future. Thanks for letting me, however. Olessi 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938) and Sudetenland

Back on May 3, you proposed merging Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938) into Sudetenland. However, you did not provide an area for discussion nor, AFAICT, has there been any discussion.

I am removing the {{merge}} tag since it is over two months old. Feel free to put it back but please provide an explanation in a discussion area.

I am opposed to the merger but I am happy to discuss it if you create a space for the discussion and start it with your rationale for the proposed merger.

--Richard 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarco-Eisack

could you express an opinion with regard to this move request? Icsunonove 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bačka

Hi Olessi,

I would like to ask you to help me on the discussion page with user PANONIAN regarding to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%C4%8Dka. As summarization: PANONIAN wrote the Demograpics part with some explanation. I think PANONIAN's work is a very good summarization of the viewpoint common among Serbs. But there exist another viewpoints, in this case Hungarian, which may differ form Serbian. For example: in the article it is written that the 1941 census was unreliable, but nothing is written to censuses 1921 and 1931. Hungarian historians think 1941 census was relaively reliable, but here were many problems with 1921 and 1931 censuses. I don't want to say that Hungarians hold the divine truth and the Serbs not, but according to Wikipedia's NPOV every relevant viewpoints has to be presented in a fair way.

I don't want to write here all my problems with that section; I think I've summarized them in a fair way. At first please read Demographic (2) part on discussion page, there are 4 (in fact: 3) points, which I think not neutral, the explanation why I consider it not to be neutral, and a proposal.

Thanks for your help in advance: Csaba Faragó

Fcsaba 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BZ

Could you give an opinion Olessi? Thanks, Icsunonove 17:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

Hello Olessi, could you help us move South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano-Bozen as found through our discussions? It requires an admin to move the page because of Province of Bolzano-Bozen existing already. Icsunonove 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Tyrol location

Now that South Tyrol has been moved to Province of Bolzano-Bozen, if you care, please add your opinion on the future of South Tyrol here: Talk:Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen#Whither_South_Tyrol.3F. — AjaxSmack 00:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

Hi Olessi, please, please help key an eye on Province of Bolzano-Bozen. We had a great group of editors (including yourself!) finally move this page to the multilingual provincial name, as cited in Brittanica (!!). Gryffindor is now having a hissy fit and saying this is the work of some "Italian" sham vote. [2] Gryffindor is going back and reverting edits in mass [3]. I've personally had enough of Gryffindor's abuses on Wikipedia. Please give advice on how we can have him investigated for the Administrative abuses he has been guilty of since 2005. Icsunonove 05:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Bolzano-Bozen (BZ)

If you could please put in your opinion at the talk page, as a certain user has returned. Icsunonove 00:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

On 3 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wendish Crusade, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much...

... for the barnstar! It's been quite some time. Now only if someone could get to the main article on those Prussians... ;) Renata 05:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Teutonic-Estonian War

A tag has been placed on Talk:Teutonic-Estonian War, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 06:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 22 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mecklenburg Castle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case 02:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potsdamer Platz

Hi Olessi

I see you've tidied up the article. As someone who has had a fascination with Potsdamer Platz for over a decade, I wrote much of the article, but I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm (hopefully) learning more about good technique all the time.

Someone moved it to "Potsdam Square" - you moved it back, I agree with this. OK so Potsdam Square is the approximate English translation but the vast majority of English-language publications I've seen still say Potsdamer Platz. Even UK friends of mine who know Berlin say Potsdamer Platz - no one says Potsdam Square.

Anyway, all the best for now.

Tonythepixel 20:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 9 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articles Prussian Crusade and Hermann Balk, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 22:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venedes

Hi,

since you have participated in the Venedes-Wends merger discussion, I would kindly request you read my opinions on this [4] [5].

Since the ethnonym Venedes is unusual for English, I would propose that the respective article be moved. My suggestion would be Northern Veneti. Regards, --Jalen 07:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venedes title move

Hi,

the Venedes move discussion has not progressed since my last reply on the article's talkpage. An administrator has now removed the RM tag and added a note that the article may be retitled in accordance with the WP:BOLD principle. Would you agree that the article be moved to Vistula Veneti? My arguments in favour of this solution are presented on the article's talkpage. Regards --Jalen 15:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Confederation

The German names in the table are also modern rather then their Middle-Ages versions, while there is no proof given here that Polish names only appeared in modern times as current version suggests. To name those names Polish and German names is more neutral then German and Modern names which might suggests Polish names appeared only recently. With best regards --Molobo 20:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul of Dönitz article

Thanks! On a cursory read-through, I feel that the article really reads much better now. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 02:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to be of assistance. Olessi 15:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zieten

I reverted you move of Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten to Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten citing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names. We can discuss it on the Zieten page if you wish. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#First word in biographies --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw

According to history page of archidiocese of Warsaw was the capital of South Prussia but the line was through Vistula bank-the left side belonging to South Prussia. [6]--Molobo (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for researching it. I'll try to integrate that into the articles next week. Olessi (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Regarding the threats it was several months ago on Polish Wikipedia IRC(on public channel)-mainly that he wants to meet me in a forest, but I need to take a bulletproof vest and a gun because I am going to need it. Since LUCPOL was quite active there he managed to convice admins to let this go, as supposedly this was outside wiki space. Neverthless I did kept record of those things. Anyway I doubt it is of any use here as it was done on Polish wiki.--Molobo (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're comfortable with the current situation I'll let things alone. If you receive any further threats on or off WP that concern you, you should consider alerting ANI, IMO. Olessi (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matter from IRC this was ~ year ago. We wrote this after drunken. On IRC was 20 administrators of wikipedia and nothing did not tell. Molobo behaves always so it - writes about old matters by 10 years ;) LUCPOL (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LUCPOL if you were drunk, and you enter Wikipedia to perform drunk exceses that not only doesn't excuse you it also degrades your credibility as an editor. --Molobo (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I not edit Wikipedia after drunken, credibility as editor does not concern here. LUCPOL (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor contacts other Wikipedians while being drunk telling them that they should were bulletproof vests and have a gun because they will need it, then their credibility is zero.--Molobo (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and the Earth is flat ;) The end. LUCPOL (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth is round, just as a drunken person making physical threats isn't credible at all.--Molobo (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not physical threats, this is joke. You this understand? In IRC 20 administrators of Wikipedia and 30 users of Wikipedia understood lightly, you write nonsense. Anybody did not understand as real threats, only you. You be touchy. LUCPOL (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On contrary admin Szwedzki was quite concerned with the threat of physical violence produced by you. Also those 30 users of Wikipedia have not been stalked by you outside Wikipedia to receive private messages of "Poles should serve under Germans you dickhead" . Nor were they target of those threats, but me.--Molobo (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You stretch matter. When you finish her? In 15 years? You are drunken whether you do this soberly? Stop poisoning. The end and EOT. LUCPOL (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand a single bit of that sentence.--Molobo (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threats against another user are unacceptable, regardless if the originator's intentions are humorous or if he/she was in an inebriated state. I trust there will be no further such incidents and this is all that must be said about the subject. Olessi (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. That matter concerned pl.IRC, not every Wikipedia. Not concerned en.wikipedia, nl, ja, u2 ;) ...... and other separate Wikipedia. That matter is already finished. LUCPOL (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olessi, LUCPOL already declared that he will wage 'war and long quarrels' because he 'will not tolerate Polish point of view in articles about Silesia'[7]("oczekuj długich sporów i wojen bo ja nie zamierzam tolerować polskiego POV w artykułach dotyczących Śląska" ask Piotrus or Darwinek for explanation what it means if you want to confirm my translation as correct one). That seems to conflict with Wikipedia policy of portaying all points of view.As you see he is very difficult editor to cooperate with.--Molobo (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo (on purpose) mistakenly translated my quotation. Molobo manipulates again. My citate ("Rozumiem, że dalej wolisz się zajmować pro-polskim POV. OK, ale oczekuj długich sporów i wojen bo ja nie zamierzam tolerować polskiego POV w artykułach dotyczących Śląska) translate polish-english: "I understand that you further prefer to deal with Polish POV. OK, but await long disputes and wars because, I will not tolerate Polish POV in articles about Silesia". LUCPOL (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements regarding points of view should be dealt with using WP:DR. My concern in this specific situation is threats against another user. LUCPOL has claimed they were not serious. I trust there will not be any further occurrences of threats. Olessi (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

WikiThanks

For copyediting Józef Piłsudski article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you may be interested in voting here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with image

Hi, can you please help me to determine proper license for this image Letov S231 I got it here de.wikipedia.org. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

Also if you don't mind could you please help me with copy-edit Jaroslav Skála and Sobering-up Station ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Czech Barnstar of National Merit
		For continuous effort in the articles related to the WikiProject Czech Republic and for the gratuitous help to other fellow wikipedians! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copy edit of GA nominee

Hi, can you please help me with the copy edit of this article Adolf Opálka I nominated it for GA but I feel a grammar needs to be improved significantly. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 5 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anton Wilhelm von L'Estocq, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

} --Woody (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandenburg coat of arms

Hi, I have reverted your changes to Template:Country data Brandenburg. The consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template is that only flags are used with these template, not coats of arms, etc. Thanks, Andrwsc (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep my eyes open for a usable flag similar to those of FOTW. Olessi (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Andrwsc (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 6 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adam, Count of Schwarzenberg, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

How interesting to find a Wikipedian from this area: many of my ancestors came from the Holstein and Schleswig area! --Royalbroil 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Heinrich August de la Motte Fouqué

Hi. I've nominated Heinrich August de la Motte Fouqué, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created.2Fexpanded on December 13, where you can improve it if you see fit. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 18 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heinrich August de la Motte Fouqué, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 07:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Olessi

Since sometimes you were able to formulate more neutral opinion about German issues I would like to ask you about an issue that occured lately in article about Kidnapping of Polish children by Germany. The issue is that one editor pushes forward an extremely low estimate from a book about Australian history in the first sentence and refuses to change it into more neutral description. I would suggest to just give basic info in the first line and then give a paragraph with several estimates instead of pushing one estimate. What do you think ? --Molobo (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry!

Merry Xmas

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --R O ^{A M A T A A}| msg 17:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Auschwitz

What is the best way to present all evidence and results for all forms of the name, so that I can't be accused of misleading others in the vote (which I can see happening). As far as I see, there are three forms of the name (Auschwitz, Oświęcim and Oswiecim) and the issue of principality/duchy (and perhaps prince/duke, if that can help), as well as the two different searches and the general Google search. Charles 06:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A table could be made, although what is more important than raw numbers (especially when the numbers are equal) is quality of sources. Olessi (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different universities

I read your post ad de noticeboard about Kant Uni. What do you think about Stefan Batory University? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Albertina was definitely closed in 1945 and then a new university was opened in 1967 at the same campus. The new university wants to be a spiritual successor to the earlier institution, but it recognizes the delineation between the two schools. I'm not familiar with the Vilnius University; has it simply been known by different names throughout history, or has it been definitively closed at some times and then later reopened as a separate institution? The article in its current state indicates to me it simply had name changes and maintained consistency. Olessi (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "K"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "L"s through "O"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grüß dich!

Did you see my comment at Talk:Kaliningrad? Sca (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: For an interesting dicussion of current Polish-German relations, see this interview with Janusz Reiter, former Polish ambassador to Germany:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,527580,00.html

Sca (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving: Wolfgang Schneiderhan (General) to Wolfgang Schneiderhan (general)

Moinsen, I'd like to ask, why you have moved Wolfgang Schneiderhan (General) to Wolfgang Schneiderhan (general)? Shouldn't General as a rank written with a capital "G"?`--Pixelfire (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: House of Blumenthal

Hi Olessi, of course, you are right about Blumenthal. I have moved it and another page (Möllendorf) to articles with "family" in the title. I think we should only use House and Dynasty for sovereign or formerly sovereign families. Ideally, the category German noble houses should be renamed German noble families. That title is inclusive of reigning, non-reigning and formerly reigning houses, dynasties, families, etc. Can a category be renamed and automatically update all of the articles and subcategories? Charles 16:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German names

Please first edit vandalism such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Slovenia-municipalities

And BTW I realy dont know why must be German or Italian names for places, where never lived many Germans or Italians such as for example Divača, Kanal ob Soči... And Hungarian name for Kostel?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krki23 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etwas neues

Vielleicht würdest du dich um mein neue Bemerkung auf Talk:Kaliningrad interessieren: "What the Russians say." Sca (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Ich frage mich, was denken unser polnische Freunde um dieses?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,529320,00.html

Sca (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Ernst Gotzkowsky

Thx for the improvements, if I need more help on German related topics I know who to ask.Taksen (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliningrad

Hi, Olessi! Did you notice that the edit histories of Kaliningrad and Königsberg are now all screwed up? The latter should have almost no history as it was split out only recently, but the former should have all of the edit history now associated with Königsberg. I could, of course, fix this myself, but since you've already been involved, I thought it'd be only fair to leave this task to you :) Please let me know if there is anything here I can help with, though. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was no fun at all, but I think I fixed it, hopefully without fucking something else up :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; glad I could help!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from East Prussia / Category:People from Königsberg

You seem to have edited server articles of people with Category:People from Königsberg catagory and amoung other thing added cats like Category:People from East Prussia . This would appear to be an error since People from Königsberg is a subcat of People from East Prussia. You may wish to review this. - SimonLyall (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messed-up name of an article

Can you please help me with this: How to move Italian Dalmatians back to its original header Dalmatian Italians (it's blocked because of a redirect, actually no discussion takes place). User:Crystalclearchanges has messed up (and confused) the name of the article like he did in more than a dozen or so more cases (a vandal in my eyes whose editing is reduced to moving pages around). The more time passes, the more confused the situation gets with the mentioned article. --DaQuirin (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I award you with this barnstar for your excellent and continuous effort in the copyediting of articles. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention

I want to thank you for going over the articles on Hans-Heinrich Dieckhoff and Hans Thomsen. I had a couple of other questions on Thomsen which you can see in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telemann articles

You did well to move those rather strange Telemann articles to proper titles and remove the duplicate (and not terribly relevant or informative) text in them. I've expanded Passions (Telemann) to provide context, background information, recordings, references, etc. But opera is more my field of expertise, so I'm leaving Admiralitätsmusik and Cantata Cycle alone. However, I'm going to tag them as requiring context and references. Hopefully, someone else will come along and fix them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I moved "Cantata Cycle" to Cantata Cycle 1716-1717 (Telemann)- Confusing title. Many composers have written Cantata Cycles. Potentially misleads reader to thinking they'll get a definition of the term). I've also notified the Classical Music Project about these articles. They're completely unreferenced (although probably copied from some catalogue. There is no way the reader knows of the lists are complete. The same goes for some other un-referenced, uncontextualized 'lists' created by Telemann. I've tagged them all, cleaned up where I could, and proposed one for deletion - List of compositions by Christoph Graupner. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further update: I had a good look at Admiralitätsmusik. It's a real mess. I've proposed it for deletion too. (See Talk:Admiralitätsmusik). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People from Estland

I've noted that you have created a category "People from Estland", and have been moving some people from the "Estonian people" category into this new category. The problem is that "Estland" is simply the German/Danish term for "Estonia", which is the correct term in English. BTW the germanic term for "Livonia" is "Livland". Martintg (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of late I have been categorizing biographies by historical state and/or province (primarily at Category:People from former German states). It seems misleading to have pre-1918 biographies categorized as "People from Latvia", for instance, since that state did not exist before that time. So, I created Category:People from Livonia and Category:People from Courland. I raised the issue of how to deal with Estonia at Wikipedia talk:Baltic States notice board#Categorization last week, since modern southern Estonia was historically part of Livonia. Unfortunately, there was no response to my proposal. I chose "Estland" since it was a historical term which has been used in English and Category:People from Estonia would too easily be confused with Category:Estonian people, IMO. Alternative suggestions would be appreciated at WP:BALTIC. Olessi (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for missing your proposal, i should look at the Baltic board more often. I appreciate that pre-1918 the present states of Estonia and Latvia did not exist, hence the need for these categories, and you chose "Estland" so as not to confuse it with modern Estonia, however Estland is not the historical English term, Esthonia is, as a check on the 1911 edition of Britannica reveals [8]. Just another thought: while it is no issue for people who were born and died or spent most of their lives in Livonia/Esthonia, what about people born, say, 1912, they would have spent most of their lives in modern Latvia/Estonia as citizens of that country, would they be correctly catergorised? Martintg (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick admin request

Hi Olessi. I just started translating de:Freier Volksstaat Württemberg and, to get the punctuation right, I set up a redirect from Free People's State of Württemberg to Free Peoples' State of Württemberg. But it was then brought to my attention that I have gotten it the wrong way around: it should be "People's", not "Peoples'". Since the redirects are already in place, an admin needs to correct it. Can you please fix this for me? Thanks. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 18:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estland

You seem to be using the Germanic term "estland" in article/category/re-directs on the basis of a Google book search:

estonia "Russian empire" 696 hits Google books [9]
estland "Russian empire" 187 hits Google books [10]

but consider:

livonia "Russian empire" 685 hits Google books [11]
livland "Russian empire" 192 hits Google books [12]
courland "Russian empire" 655 hits Google books [13]
kurland "Russian empire" 287 hits Google books [14]

and finally:

germany "Russian empire" 1251 hits Goggle books [15]
deutschland "Russian empire" 494 hits Google books [16]

Clearly estonia/livonia/courland/germany is more common in english usage than the germanic estland/livland/kurland/deutschland. It's okay to refer to the germanic name in the body of the article/category/re-direct, but I think we should use the english term in the article/category/redirect title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Martintg (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Livonia/Courland/Estonia are the most common designations in English, which is why they are used in the title and are the primary terminology used within articles. The subdivisions of Imperial Russia had no official designations in English (AFAIK), however, which is why there is such a prevalence of different terms. Livland/Kurland/Estland have certainly been used in English, and the MOS mentions the inclusion of alternate names in the introduction. Olessi (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The prevalence of different terms is more to do with modern confusion rather than your speculation that there was no official designation. I gave you a reference to the 1911 edition of Britanica, that region was officially known at that time as "Esthonia", no mention of "Estland". Most references to "Esthonia" are in books published before 1925, most references to "Estland" are in books published in the late 20th C. So we can be confident that the province Imperial Russia was known as "Esthonia" at that time. So you will rename the category "People from Estland" to the more common form as it was known at the time? Martintg (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governorates

Thanks for taking care of that. I added the name to Bessarabia, renamed and expanded Chernomore, and added a bit to Georgia. I am not sure what you wanted me to do with Penza and Tula, as both simply redirect to the articles on corresponding cities, which do not mention governorates at all. Also, governor of Taganrog is in a truly sorry state; I'll add it to my to-do list but may not get to fixing it soon. Hope this helps! Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provinces

You aren't going to like this, but a great deal of dab pages you created about provinces will have to be moved. "Smolensk Province", for example, is not only an alternative English name for Smolensk Governorate and Smolensk Oblast, but also a name of an actual entity (Смоленская провинция), which existed in the beginning of the 18th century (it was a part of Riga Governorate). It could also refer to "Smolensk Vice-Royalty", which was formed in 1775. Is this something you can clean up yourself, or do you need help?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list, it helps. I've fixed Smolensk Province and am planning to go through the rest eventually. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you should check the Hanseatic League page

I may be displaying my ignorance, but I think someone has modified your Hanseatic League website. Here are a couple of examples.

Historians generally trace the origins of the League to the rebuilding of the North German town of Lübeck in 1158/59 by Duke Horny like a Lion of Duchy of Saxony,

Hanseatic League(='a whales vagina' in german).

Thanks for your hard work.

ham williams

Thanks for the alert. Looks like the vandalism has been removed from the article. Wikipedia:Vandalism has tips for dealing with vandalism as well. Olessi (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Prince-Bishops and cats

Hi Olessi, I came across this [17] and removed it. A Prince-Bishop was Reichsfürst of the empire (prince of Holy Roman Empire, not Reichsfürst (prince-bishop of Poland). Ermland- Warmia was without interruption an exempt prince-bishopric since Lucas Watzenrode until 1922. All Ermland /Warmia bishops were by family or were made by the emperor prince-bishops Reichsfürsten (even when they were also Polish or Italian, such as Piccolomino, the later pope). All Ermland prince-bishops, even the Polish ones, honored that Independend Status of Ermland/Warmia and did not try to annex Ermland/Warmia to Poland. Let me add, that Ermland was already Fürstbistum since 1336 under emperor Charles IV and Exempt Fürstbistum since 1512 Lucas Watzenrode. MfG 26 Feb 2008

Also- please - do be more careful with categories such as [18] and others. None of these people from Elbing have anything to do with your category Elblag. That place was created with Communist Soviet take-over in 1945. (I fixed the wrong list by taking all people from Elbing,Prussia off. Now it is correct, where it has people from Elblag /Polish city. Thank you). MfG 26 Feb 2008

My RfA

Hi Olessi. Thank you very much for giving your support to my admin application, which recently closed successfully (36/3/1). I hope to be able to continue working together with you and, if there is any way that I can help out more, please drop me a line. Thanks again. - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakes

You may be interested in the message I have left here, per your remark at WT:RM#Lakes. Some have been reverted, but many more remain. Thanks for your time, Knepflerle (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TU Braunschweig

Moin! Oder "Tach", im Pott. Ich habe gesehen wie Du den Titel des Artikels übersetzt hast. OK, meinetwegen, obwohl ich nicht den großen Nutzen sehen kann, aber wenn ich raten darf, daß Du bitte Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik in Ruhe läßt, insbesondere, weil DIBt sehr kribbelig ist mit Übersetzungen des Namens. Offiziel, amtlich und genehmigt durch den Senat der BRD gibt es keine Übersetzung für den leicht zu übersetzenden Namen des Institutes (unnütz meines Erachtens aber sonst beschweren die sich lauthals...). Was glaubst Du bei TUB mit der Namensübersetzung gewonnen zu haben? --Achim (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moin, moin

Hi Olessi, just a minor note: in Holstein just tourists say "Moin, moin!" (and think, they can please the locals). People from rural areas or some young (hip) crowd say here "moin" , but very rarely "moin, moin".--Zarbi1 (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am a native Pennsylvanian, it doesn't bother me that much. :-P Olessi (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation

Just so you don't think I am advocating this from sheer stubbornness, my position is that good article research should discriminate between good and bad original research, even when it is the source for the article. I don't think reference work editors should compromise on article quality in any way as a proof of our integrity expected by users--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Barnstar

Thank you; I try my best :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]