User talk:Tfine80/ARCHIV3

SnoodleGirl

While the timing and edit summary are highly suspicious, this account appears to have reverted Bobbydoop's edits. Let's see where this goes. Please let me know if anyone reinserts any of Bobbydoop's edits from this point on. —David Levy 05:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GermGov tag

Hello, further to your message I agree with you. However, the German govt at the time released many of these pictures into the public domain, therefore, there is no copyright issue. These pictures should not be deleted "just to be safe" as somebody has stated on the tag. Cordially Battlefield 13:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Siehe aktuell: 3RR. Gruß --ST ○ 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Es gibt nicht den geringsten Beweis dafür, dass die deutsche Reichs- oder Bundesregierung solche Bilder als gemeinfrei erklärt hat. Ich habe davon nicht das geringste in allen mir bekannten Urheberrechtskommentaren gelesen. Wenn ein Beamter oder Angestellter diese Bilder gemacht hat, so ist der normale Rechtsnachfolger seines Dienstherrn (z.B. Bundesrepublik) Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte. Wenn du dir den von mir verfassten Weblogbeitrag http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/1185888/ durchliest, wirst du feststellen, dass ich mich vergleichsweise intensiv mit der Frage amtlicher Werke auseinandergesetz habe und die Rechtslage wirklich beurteilen kann. Gruß --Historiograf 17:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am a lawyer and I can confirm that Historiograf is the most respected authority for all copyright issue on the German WP. Greetz --User:Idler ∀

Hallo alle. Es ist wichtig zu erinnern, dass ich kein Administrator bin! Ihr sollt vielliecht mit Herrn Wales sprechen. Ich kann nur versuchen, diesen User von dieser Meinung zu überzeugen. Aber dieses Problem braucht wirklich eine endgültige Lösung. Tfine80 19:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Das sollten wir aber schleunigst ändern. Wo stelle ich hier den Antrag? ;-) --ST ○ 20:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danke... :) Ich habe eine neue Nachricht auf den Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard gestellt. Tfine80 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe mir erlaubt einen deutschsprachigen Admin hier anzuhauen [1] --Historiograf 21:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Stadion Graz-Liebenau, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Missing articles list in DE with links

I'll update the list when the new database dumps appear at http://download.wikipedia.org. (The current dumps are almost 3 weeks old.) Happy newyear! -- Eugene van der Pijll 21:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been updated. Eugene van der Pijll 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Mail

Hi there, please drop me a line via "E-mail this user" with your e-mail address. I would like to forward you a three-pages word document from a US professor of political science with comments regarding the Red Cross article. More about that via e-mail. I already tried to contact you via the "E-mail this user" a couple of days ago (sending you my own e-mail address), but it seems that the message got lost. --Uwe 13:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again, is there some problem with the Wikipedia e-mail feature? --Uwe 21:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunant (once again)

Check this out: ca:Jean_Henri_Dunant. It seems like we've set a standard with the Dunant article for other Wikipedia projects. That's the fifth language version after DE, EN (from DE), NO (from EN), DA (from NO) and now CA (from EN). Best Regards & a nice sunday, --Uwe 12:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC) PS: I received your reply to my e-mail - thank you for your comments. I look forward to your edits to the article.[reply]

XegaKN

The quotations that you spoke of were from the testimony of Champ Ferguson. That paper in its original form has footnotes on it, which makes it much clearer. As is stands on here, it is a bit vauge I agree. I know HTML, and have done plenty of sites in it, but I don't know wiki code. I just never got around to learning it; so if you can add subscripts I don't know how. As far as the battle of saltville, that is what I put on the web. Extensive research has been done on that battle and I feel it is well documented. The reason that I made an artical on the Hospital is that it has not been thoroughly researched. In fact I am traveling to Washington D.C. soon to further my research and I hope to find the names of the Union soldiers who were buried in the hospital across the street from the hospital. Thus far, historians have been unsuccessful, we will see how my luck fairs...

Jaroslav Hašek "varying quality" stories

[2] Just FYI: I picked the label "varying quality" (of Hašek's stories) from foreword of a book with collection of his stories. At it really fits - quite a many are really sub-average (Hašek produced them in large quantities, under time pressure and often wrote something because of specific demand). Pavel Vozenilek 21:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steschke/Image copyright (Germany)

If you like, you can finish work by c&p to a new article at enWP. You did most of the work. Please insert the source, that this is a translation of the german article, authors, GFDL etc. Let me know, when you're finished. --ST ○ 00:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Garyalanfine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Garyalanfine.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 09:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation, the other direction

Check this one. While checking the article on Samuel Alito, I found Kennedy to be still red in the German Wikipedia (in the Wikipedian meaning of the word "red"), the only one of the nine to be still missing. So I decided to do something about it. Strictly speaking, it's not a full translation because I left out some details about his Supreme Court Tenure. Maybe you can have a look and check for accuracy. Best Regards, --Uwe 23:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC) PS: any specific plans on the Red Cross comments by DPF?[reply]

I did not want to press you on the Red Cross article, and I already suspected that you were away on leave from your Wikipedia work. Travelling is almost always an excellent idea. As for the Kennedy article, after doing the translation I researched a couple of more information from various websites and added it. That's why the German version is ahead of its English counterpart on some parts. And thanks for the insightful comments about the decisions section, I will certainly act on them - who am I to argue with a guy who is educated in political science :o). Though I have to think how to best put your comments into words. Best Regards, --Uwe 22:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some time, it would be nice if you could check my recent edits on the German Anthony Kennedy article to see whether they reflect your comments. Best Regards, --Uwe 22:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the praise ...

... on the Café Hawelka image. Let's hope they're not thinking of refurbishing it. All the best, <K F> 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, for real, but not you.

I took some time to look into the information you gave me, and I found that there was adequate reason to block Bobbydoop for a week. I have also posted the case to the Admin Noticeboard, and if other see cause, it may be extended to an indefinite block. If you like, your input on his actions on that page may be helpful. – Clockwork Soul 01:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for alerting me to the updates on Wikipedia: No Ads project and for calling me to join in the struggle to prevent the deletion of the article. Patman2648 16:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming

Hi Tfine80, before you posted on my Talk page, I already added my comment to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads when I saw you spamming. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-10 00:39Z

Thank you. I felt that alerting members that a group they were participants in could be deleted would not be considered spam. I hope it was clear that this was an alert to these users. Tfine80 00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WikiProject No ads participant alert

Thanks for the note. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for the note. However, I feel that this project is now not neccessary, and does not belong in the project namespace. While we apparently are divided on the "keeping" of this project, I do appreciate the fact that you took the time to notify the members. Thank you very much. Regards, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Just FYI, I reverted this talk page vandalism today. Looks we have a mutual friend: I got one too. I'm considering regifting it, however. – Clockwork Soul 16:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored

The information-please read the discussion page-the antipolish character wasn't potential but evident. It is well sourced. Your recent edit deleted even more information then previous editors. --Molobo 00:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot know Bismarck's psychology exactly and "eradication" of Polish culture is too strong in English

Well he wrote "ausrotten" http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/cgjs/publications/hbpolgerpol.html "German anti-Slavism, which was often directed at the Poles, had prominent spokesman in the nineteenth century. In a letter in March 1861 to his sister Malwine v. Arnim-Kröchlendorff, Bismarck, for example, expressed the Prussian-German attitude towards the Poles which turned out to be a blueprint for the future: "So clobbeth the Poles so that they despair; they have my deepest sympathy for their situation, but, if we want to exist, we have no choice but to wipe them out ('ausrotten'); the wolf cannot help it that he was created by God the way he is, but one shoots him yet, if one can."(11) In this case the translation is "wipe out". Here you have an indepth analysis of the German word ausrotten: http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/ausrotten.shtml The authors conclude that in relation to human beings it can only mean eradication. 2. (Volk [a people], Rasse [race], etc.) exterminate, wipe out, extirpate: diese Krankheit rottete die ganze Bevölkerung aus this disease wiped out the entire population; die Urbevölkerung des Landes wurde ausgerottet the native population of the country was exterminated (od. killed off); etwas mit Stumpf und Stiel ausrotten auch fig. to destroy s.th. root and branch. Ausrottung: 1. cf. Ausrotten. 2. (eines Volkes [of a people], einer Rasse [of a race] etc) extermination, extirpation: systematische Ausrottung von Völkern [systematic Ausrottung of a people] (od. eines Volkes [of a people]) genocide. All this detail confirms one simple truth. The word means killing when discussing living things, such as Unkraut (weeds), Volksstämme, Volk, Rasse (a race), Wolfe (wolves), Tiere (animals), or Tumors (tumors). As you can see I went for lighter version and just mentioned Polish language and culture being viewed by Bismarck as something that needs to be eradicated. What is your proposal for explaining his statement towards Poles based on this ? --Molobo 00:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending Bismarck. I simply believe that from a historian's perspective, we cannot use one comment from a different context as the definitive motivation behind the entire Kulturkampf in Poland. It has a complicated historical impetus, and Bismarck's psychology is also complicated. While not a great guy necessarily, I'm not sure he literally wanted to exterminate the Poles as Hitler did. And even if you believe this quotation is important and supports this view, it cannot be phrased as a simple fact because of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. However, this is more of a subject for his biography anyway. Here we need to do more to document specific incidents of anti-Polish actions that can be construed as part of the Kulturkampf. Find data on the number of churches affected, anti-Polish elements in Kulturkampf decrees, etc. Tfine80 01:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gustave Moynier

Hi there, I see that you have a good knowledge of French among your many foreign languages. Could you see whether this PDF document, which looks like a bio about Moynier, contains valuable information which is not yet contained in our Wikipedia articles about him? The author Roger Durand is the founder of the Henry Dunant Society and has published numerous times about Red Cross history, so it's probably a good source of information. Best Regards, --Uwe 10:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, some time ago I read a very meaningful comparison between Dunant and Moynier regarding their role for the foundation of the ICRC. Dunant was the architect of the Red Cross, Moynier was the engineer. And while the architect gets most of the fame and glory, his work is largely over when the house is finished. On the other hand, the engineer keeps on working, constantly supervising and improving the stability of the construction. Both are needed to create a great building. But both are often at odds with each other because for the architect, not even the sky is the limit, while the engineer deals with the feasible. I added some information to the German article about Moynier, maybe you can check them out and translate them. Best Regards, --Uwe 15:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news for you. I've significantly extended the German article about Moynier so its English counterpart is behind the German version. For you, that means work :). I would do it for myself but I'm caught between my daily work in the lab (the part of my life I spent on earning a living), regular deployments with the Red Cross (I live in an area in Germany which recently was affected by avian influenza in wild birds - so we regularly have to cater for soldiers, firefighters and volunteers who search for and collect dead birds), and last but not least I work on a printed book composed from Red-Cross-related Wikipedia articles (check this page for more information). I hope all is well for you? Best Regards, --Uwe 17:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1996 (USA) campaign finance scandal

Thanks for the nice comments and welcome. I appreciate it! --Jayzel68 16:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator, reverted his decision and reposted my article to the FAC page. If you like it, please vote "support". Thanks again! --Jayzel68 02:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the pruning you did with the "new china lobby" section. Though I removed the first "citation needed" remark because I don't think multiple sources are required for something as non-controversial as saying the Chinese government attended summits with the U.S. government. Also, I removed your use of the word "constellation". I think that is a bit flowery. Additionally, I added two new sources to this section.

As for your comment "needs more balanced info; cannot only rely on senate report": I don't know what you mean. The article clearly states the denials by Hsia, Liu, and the Chinese government and the article contains 58 citations from many different sources (Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, PBS, WorldNetDaily, CNN, CBS, Human Events, Department of Justice, et al.). My article probably has more sources than 90% of the articles at Wikipedia.

Lastly, re: your comment about "lead-in into context of trie". I agree. I will have to work on that when I get the time. --Jayzel68 19:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. I've made a few changes I think you'll like. I've added a couple direct quotes from Chinese officials denying the allegations and have tied the "china lobby" and "major figures" sections together as per you "lead in to trie request". I hope you like. Again, thanks for the suggestions. --Jayzel68 18:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop annoying me with your immature behavior.

I don't know who bobbydoop is Mikeandike 17:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alright.. below is your lil' beef with him/her.

from this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tfine80&oldid=38656609

I am not a part of this. please stop violating the 3r rule in numerous ways..

Alpha Phi Alpha

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BobbyDoop

Bronx High School of Science

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BobbyDoop

Hunter College High School

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BobbyDoop

Mikeandike 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AA

How's things? So I seem to be involved in a bit of content dispute over the status of Anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Wondering if you might drop by with an opinion. You'll see the various reversions in the recent history. Cheers, Marskell 10:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mato Kosyk

I translated the Dutch nl:Mato Kosyk to English for you; the differences are mostly stylistic (conforming to current styleguides). The article can use some copyediting though; the source material wasn't of the highest quality. ;) Hope this helps! --MJ^(☎|@|C) 16:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the Record

My edit to the Norkus article was primarily a copy edit, as it was written poorly and leaving some confusion as to what was going on. Unquestionably the nazis themselves, gave the impression that the father made the switch, as many German Communists did. This was purported in the movie, Hitler Jugend Quex, and stated in some of their propaganda tracts about Norkus. As I don't necessarily give these sources total credence, I put the "converted" between two exclamation points. I did that because it is not universally accepted as fact (especially in places like the DDR). It's really not that important to me. If you have a problem with it, please remove it. As I said the original sentence was awkward and confusing. Leaving it as it was, made less sense to me. Dr. Dan 19:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trusting the nazis is one thing, having a poorly wriiten sentence is another thing. If I trusted the nazis, I wouldn't have "it". Do you like the way it was written? Do you have anything in the line of information to improve the sentence? Can you add anything of value to the question? Personally, neither the article nor the subject are of interest to me. I ran into it because of the sailing ships involved. I know the period of history and saw the movie in my college days. As I stated above, if you have a problem with it, please remove it. You're always welcome to contact me, but please don't waste my time on this subject, as I'm not inclined to respond to it. This was a courtesy. Dr. Dan 04:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tfine80, I have read your new edit. As a native speaker of English (like yourself), I really find it awkward, and confusing. If one knew nothing about his father, the only thing one could understand from the two sentences about him in the article, was that he was wounded in WWI. There's got to be a better way, and as you are the original author, I'll let you take a shot at it. I hope you agree. Best wishes, Dr. Dan 00:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]