User talk:Ruhrjung

Welcome to Wikipedia! Keep up the good work. -- Mic

Thanks! (We'll see. I think I'm rather stubborn, when it comes to continuing on projects. Expect to see me here regularly as in several times a month, not regularly as in every day or even every week.) -- Ruhrjung 08:30 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

Finland's and the Baltic States' independence

Interesting on the Baltic dimension at Väinö I of Finland. I've been away for the most of June and I haven't been able to follow developments, but I'm sure you've done alot of good contributions. -- Mic 13:07 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Ireland and WWII neutrality

Many people presume Irish neutrality was not being willing to take sides in the war. It was much more complicated. In fact recent scholarship has questioned whether Ireland was neutral at all. In many areas, it was a figleaf to avoid destabilising the Irish state through triggering off an IRA campaign (The IRA would have reacted badly to any open support for Britain); the IRA had links with the nazis and any destablisation would have made it easier for Germany to invade, at a time when no-one else could have protected Ireland because Britain was fighting for its survival, France was gone, the US wasn't involved at the time, etc. But it was a fiction. Ireland supplied tens of thousands of soldiers to the British army from the island, and vast numbers from the Irish community in Britain. IRA men were executed. British pilots that crashed in Ireland were chased very very slowly, ie pretending to catch them while giving them plenty of time to get to Northern Ireland (sometimes police gave them directions!). But German airmen were interned immediately. Ireland facilitated the bugging of the German embassy by the British, the Irish Intelligence services secretly briefed the British with information. Weather reports which both sides needed were denied offically to both, then secretly supplied to the Allies, as was every scrap of information Irish diplomats could get their hands on in Berlin and Rome.

Put simply, Ireland's neutrality was a practical solution aimed at making Ireland as difficult as possible for Germany to invade. It was in a different category to the neutrality practiced in many other neutral states. The mention I added in is a factual amendment to point out that the often believed impression that Ireland refused to aid the Allies against Germany is nonsense. Ireland could offer them little militarily but if invaded by Germany it could be used against Britain in a way that would make Britain's defence of itself almost impossible. Irish neutrality in effect gave the Allies far more than open support could have; maximum strength to reduce the threat of naxi invasion and crucial covert information, some of it (such as in effect spying on nazis under the cover of neutrality and weather forecasts about incoming Atlantic weather patterns crucial during the Battle of Britain and in planning D-Day, information denied to Germany which gave the Allies the edge at crucial turning points. FearÉIREANN 01:19 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, yes and yes. :-)) My thought is however, that it might be suitable to make an article of its own on the different deviations from strict neutrality and the impartial attitude toward the belligerents according to the conventions of the Second Hague Conference. If I as a reader had a choise, I would prefer to see Éire's, Sweden's and Switzerland's sensitive manoevres in the same context/on the same www-page.

What do you think? -- Ruhrjung 09:28 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

The comma-convention and German cities

AFAIK The format of disambiguation of place names outside of the USA is still under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(city_names). I think you should enter the discussion before unilaterally deciding to move German place names. Mintguy 22:21, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Germany is no state of USA. That is established, even in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(city_names), where virtually no arguments for the comma-notion are presented, although the debate there seems to have fallen asleep (about July 22nd). --Ruhrjung

I understand and indeed agree with your position. However, such bold moves are usually made after some discussion and agreement or consensus and not unilaterally, and I don't recall seening you participating this particular one. Mintguy 22:41, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I most certainly did. Among other things asking for reasons why Frankfurt am Main should redirect to Frankfurt, and not the other way around (no-one found that question interesting, though I repeated it), ...but also in the common whine choir. And what are we supposed to do when the proponents of a questioned habit don't defend their position (at least not by arguments), but leave walk-over? I'm not in knowledgable enough to discuss conventions extending the few countries I know (France, Benelux, Germany, the so called "Old Europe", and maybe Scandinavia), let alone propose any general convention, which seemingly is the feeling of more than myself. If we are lucky, my boldness might lead to a revival of the discussion, or something.--Ruhrjung 23:21, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Mintguy, that you should not make further page moves. Now we have the situation of some cities in this format and some cities in the other format, which is the worst solution at all. Before your change ALL German cities were in the comma notion. I don't prefer one of these formats, but I am strongly in favour of uniformity. Maybe I will later revert your changes.

Moreover, why is Brunswick placed under Brunswick (Lower Saxony) and not Brunswick (Germany). We should prefer the name of the country, because in other countries it is more widely known than the federal state. Only if there were two cities of that name in Germany, I would agree with this change. Cheers -- Cordyph 10:08, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, the most true reason is (I believe) that I made that change first, and at that time was, beside heavily intoxicated, having the (finally) ducal grand-ducal dynasty von Braunschweig in my mind. For me, the city and the rulers residing there are connected to Saxony, not to Germany. You are of course free to do whatever changes and revertions you like. If you think the wikipedia-project is more served by "uniformity" treating Germany as an entity comparable with the states of USA and Australia, well... please, have your ways. But don't complain if the credibility of the project is harmed outside of USA.--Ruhrjung 11:40, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

When I said uniformity, I meant, that at least all entries within Germany should be in the same format. That may be different from the format used for U.S. states, but changing some random articles from comma notion to parantheses and leave the rest as is, that is for sure a bad idea. If at all, we should have discussed this first on the mailing list or another place, and then we might go ahead and change all articles. What this has to do with the credibility of project - well, I don't know.
And if we state a geographical entity where a city belongs to, it should of course be the current country and not a medieval duchy. Excuse me, but your explanation about the page move to Brunswick (Lower Saxony) is rather odd. -- Cordyph 14:13, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I never said I had any good explanation, did I? :-) However, also you, my friend, seem to need a brief repetition of our history. "Medieval" ... tsk, tsk. :-)) Anyway, I was under the belief that I tracked down all (six-or-something) German towns with the comma-disambiguation in the page-name. Don't tell me I left some behind?
 ;->
--Ruhrjung 06:21, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Continuation War (1)

What do you think we should do with this? It seems that Graculus ans 172 are not going to defend their version. I don't want to revert the article if it just gets reverted back. Should we wait a couple of days and then revert the article to one of the versions we see as NPOV? I also wanted you know that I found Graculus behaviour very offending. -- Jniemenmaa 09:19, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

I've noticed the debate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship which, to express it mildly, did nothing to improved my impression. To some degree, more than I actually would like to admit, do User:Eloquence's, cimon's and User:172's (see also: the talk page) arguments make me disappointed. It ought not to be the slightest relevant if someone participates in an edit war, or not, but the ways of war: the propagandist slant (or as they say so much these days, the spin) and the disrespect for other contributors - and for Truth, for heaven's sake!

Sorry to butt in when you were going at such free flow ;-) But, But but...

Everything you say about Graculus'es style above, is in my view justified (I am not saying it is right, but it certainly is justified). What we may disagree upon (but perhaps agree to disagree upon), is the question of what is appropriate to the case of sysophood approval. I hope Truth will not take offence, if I claim that she has no say in the matter of how people pursue her. And the Wikipedia should not do so either; to the point that Wikipedia should not discriminate by style, but by hard and deliberate demonstrable acts. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick

Exactly. We agree to disagree. And I expect people, who agree with you, will be more likely to remain active within this project than people who have a view related to mine. Nothing thereby said about numbers.--Ruhrjung 13:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is quite ambiguously put. Are you saying that there may be good numbers of those who do not wish to participate in this site if we require more than an isolated incident before stopping people from joining the group of sysops. If that is indeed true in large numbers, I haven't heard many who have expressed that view, before you seem to be suggesting it here now. Maybe I have misunderstood something, in which case, please elucidate. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 17:19, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

No. I am specifically avoiding to say anything about numbers. For two reasons: 1/ I have not the faintest knowledge. 2/ I believe numbers being less important than whom is repulsed and attracted by a wikipedia where your opinion rules. Don't forget that the nominee in question is pretty fresh around here. By saying "his demonstrated bias and his ways to pursue his POV is 'an isolated incident' limited to only few articles" I think one in practice, although not expressively, endorses his and similar techniques. This might turn the wikipedia project a bit more in direction of a battle ground where the law of the jungle rules, and it might in the long run repulse factually competent contributors. Such a process is possibly self-amplifying.

I had been less surpriced if Eloquence had argued: "this incident motivates a/ some waiting time, so that we can see that it's not a habit and b/ a somewhat closer look on the nominee's other actions," which would have sent a signal to both the nominee in question but also to other confrontative users, that their methods are not generally considered optimal.

I would also like to point out that when people propose and support nominees at that page, then their arguments for nominees are very much about qualities which this nominee in this particular case demonstrated deficient. So I do not feel detached from the rethoric in general, only by your stance which I incisivedly read as: Let's give him authority and powers, and boost his standing. First thereafter we can determine if he'll abuse it or not. ...or, errr, if the negative aspects weigh heavier than his valuable work as a sysop. But I think there are many reasons why it's easier not to grant honors and privileges than to revoke them. --Ruhrjung 09:28, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ruhrjung, I totally agree with you. Actually this whole thing bothered me more than it should have. Wonder who has been doing all the "pointless bickering and politicking"? Not you or Tuomas at least. -- Jniemenmaa

I don't really understand how my one edit and one reversion (nor Tuomas' repeated reversion and single rewrite) can have produced the strong feelings expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Graculus and User Talk:Graculus#Continuation War.--Ruhrjung 13:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Honestly - I do care, but I don't know what to say or to propose. In my own personal self-view, my role has been to balance you Finns and your natural and understandable tendency to stress a Finnish POV (not that I believe there to be only one Finnish POV, of course not! ;->>). Now, User:Graculus has done his best to "balance" it, and hence outshone my role, but alas not being willing to discuss the issue. I thought I offered one attempt to work in some of his contributions in the text, while filtering away what I feared would trigger drastic Finish work-ups (sooner or later). User:Tuomas rewrote the introduction, improved it and addressed some of the "controversial" issues in a factual way. User:Graculus remained mute but stubborn.

I have a huge respect for Truth. - just for the record - What I have found out, though, is that Truth is a shy lady, she only comes out to play, if the players try to give each other much leeway in expressing themselves. It likes a stubborn viewpoint almost as much as a volatile one. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 18:45, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

Your lines look nice. Beautifully poetic prose! My only problem is that I have no idea what you actually are aiming at.--Ruhrjung 13:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's good that I do know then! Just doing my best to get a hand under her skirts, and cop a good feel up her source. What I am saying (in plain) is that if restrictions are designed purely by either rhetoric/linguistic ability or (and I honestly think many people miss this, without consciously wanting to) their people skills. There is a good line about this in both the Hagakure and in Confucius' Analects, but I can't be bothered to dig either up right now. Maybe after I save this... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 17:19, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

No offence, but... "if restrictions are designed purely by either language ability or their people skills." ...then? It's not the quotation I ask for, it's the meaning. :-) --Ruhrjung 09:28, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hokay, how about a quote from Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick: "If you elect only politicians to power, then the politicians will have power." Personally I dislike rule by elite in every form, and sysophood becoming a political office is to my view a much worse prospect than letting a few broken vessels squeak through. And I disagree with the contention that Graculus' actions were quite as severely deficient as you and Tuomas seem to think; which is quite understandable, since you two were emotionally committed to oppose him. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 10:29, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

Ha! I've been itching to NPOV (or should I say Finn-POV) your stuff on Finnish history for a while... :) I know that I have an Finnish POV for the war, but it is a lot closer to "your version" that Graculus'. But since I am more of an wargaming buff, so I'd rather do articles on the individual battles of the war. -- Jniemenmaa

The way my personality normally works is:

I've made my attempts now. They weren't approved. Well. That's OK. Let someone else try.

I'm currently reading up on Swedish Social Democrats (memoirs and biographies). Much more interesting than engaging in "wars" with people who refuse to communicate. There are two aspects of "Swedishness" which I slowly begin to get some sort of a grip of: Folkrörelserna and the hegemony of Social Democracy. It's been intriguing but strange to me - it still is - but I begin to understand one thing or another.

...Swedish collectivism for instance. A few days ago I met a 70-ish man at a skördefest in a village just outside of Malmö and Lund, who argued that the statarsystem and the bruksorter had been over-all good for many of the employees. He had himself grown up as a statarunge until 1944, when the system was abolished and his father was given the choice between becoming a leaseholder or season-employee. He, the son I met, ment that for many/most of the statare that system ment stability, community and security which they missed in their new roles as urbanized industrial workers or tenant-farmers. Compared to Finnish mentality and Finnish national myths, this is definitely something else. The Swedes as the archetypic village dwellers, much similar to how my great-aunt remembers her childhood in East-Prussia.
--Ruhrjung 17:41, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I must confess I have an hole in my knowledge of Swedish history approximately between 1809 and 1980. I'll be waiting for your article(s) on the subject.. :) For the moment I'am interested about Finnish pre-history and medieval history, so I won't be interested in an "edit war" either. Ok, I've never been interested in edit wars anyway. I am more happy with writing new articles (and seeing them improved by others!). -- Jniemenmaa 08:55, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

Don't expect too much. I must say that although over a million immigrants live in Sweden, and must have made similar experiences as I (and you), I can't consider the issue sufficiently interesting for any broader international forum. I was rather intending to give the impression that I read things which are unrelated to Wikipedia. ;->> --Ruhrjung 13:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

illustration on divisions of Christianity

I actually know very little about christianity. I just converted the ascii-art to a jpg. I'm not even christian. LDan 00:33, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's OK. I don't think you need to know anything in order to make an illustration... ;-))) Think of the denominations as the results of the forkings, and that which is not results, that must then be the causes of the forkings (as the Reformation, for instance).--Ruhrjung 01:08, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Sysop nomination

I was just looking over your contributions, and you're a great contributor. Would you like to be a sysop? I haven't filed any of the official requests yet, but if you want to be a sysop, you'd probably be accepted. LDan 00:45, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thankyou, but no thanks. :-)
I am sufficiently much of an wikiholic without such a bold move.
--Ruhrjung 01:08, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Holy Roman Empire, sovereignty and suzeranity

sovereignty as we meen it now and sovereignty 'independence' as meant the are not the same thing. Suzeranity on the one hand, landeshoheit on the other. Much of Prussia wasnt part of the empire - habsburg lands in the the empire werent subject to any will of the emperor (usually a hapsburg unless for reasons of the specific feudal obligations of the land in question except when regarding the emperor's most basic funftions - which wasnt to be absolute lord and master. The Holy Roman Empire should be thought of as an internetional treaty organisation or corporation in which the emperor was the chairman of the board, not divine right monarchy. In other words, i mean that those territorities did ahve unabhangigkeit, landeshoheit and landesherrlicheit - independence even part in the Empire.
User:Tridesch

Nope, they achieved this during the course of the history, at the same time as the development in other important international powers was the opposite.
--Ruhrjung 06:14, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, sorry - youre wrong for the era you were referring to. By the Napoleonic Era, these states were perfectly free to do whatever they wished and the larger ones - did. Every state was technically independent under the suzeranity of the emperor. These concepts dont correspond w how modern states work. This was my concentration in college.
User:Tridesch

For the Napoleonic Era you are perfectly right, but please direct me to which article we are currently discussing.
--Ruhrjung 07:07, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Pronounciation guides

Why are you trying to get pronounciation guides added to some pages? Most people I know outside academia run a mile from them because the vast majority of people find them gobbledigook. Wikipedia lacks a universal standard of experience of their usage because of the varying expertise in english among users, and is potentially read by people in international locations who have never seen them, do not understand them and do not have the sort of grasp of subtities of pronounciation to make head or tail of them. Please just use simple linguistic guides that everyone can follow, rather than guides that are of use to only a small minority of linguists.
FearÉIREANN 19:48, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My wish would be to get rid of the gobbledigook of transcriptions to English, except of course for the cases when these are regularly used. I made a comment on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
--Ruhrjung 06:55, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Lists of queers vs racist lists (VfD)

Hi, I'm curious to know a bit more about your votes on VfD. Under "queer composers" you said "Keep", but under "caucasians" you said "Racism warning! Delete". You seem to be saying that listing people by race is automatically a bad thing, but listing people by sex is not. Why is that? Have I just misunderstood you?

For the record, I've now formed the opinion that all these lists are a waste of time, and what we actually need is searchability. I won't bother voting to delete them, though, just wait for them to become obsolete.
Onebyone 17:06, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Let me start by asserting that I dislike, personally, the wiki-habit of lots of lists of this and that. But I can, imho, not make this my dislike a reason to vote for deletion. However, if I try to presure myself on honesty, it's probably so that I watch request for deletions of lists more closely and benevolently than other requests for deletions. Hence my notice that I to my own surprise found me being voting in favor of a list.

Yes, I say that (on wikipedia) listing people by race is a dangerous road (i.e. a bad thing). Listing people by sex is not the issue here, but by acknoledged or believed unconventional sexual preferences. I might have my doubts on some of the posts on these lists, but that's totally irrelevant for VfD.

I consider racism a danger, in particular for the wikipedia. But I do not consider prejudices and selective data compilations on sexual preferences harmful for wikipedia, at least not for the moment; furthermore: I hold for relevant and interesing the debate on a possible relation between extraordinary contributions to science, arts, etc, and attitudes of exclusiveness among many of these extraordinary contributors, which might explain why many of them seemingly are less bound by conventional moral norms.
--Ruhrjung 17:36, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oops, my original question wasn't quite right. I meant to say "by sexual preference" rather than "by sex". It doesn't seem to have confused you, though.

I don't agree that listing by race necessarily poses any danger of racism, or that racism is more dangerous (in this context) than prejudice based on sexuality. But your votes certainly make sense to me now, so thanks for taking the time to answer.
Onebyone 09:44, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Ruhrjung. I looked at all the pages listed in that section of the disputes page. Posnan was already protected before I got your message. I have now protected Teschen as well. Silesia's been protected for a while. I haven't protected the others as they are not currently in an edit war and I don't like to portect pages just in case they are attacked. Wroclaw has only had 1 edit in the last 30 hours. Prussia's only had 1 edit in 2 days. Szczecin and Pomerania haven't been edited since the 22nd. Gdansk hasn't been edited since the 20th and Polish Corridor hasn't been edited for 35 hours. So these seem comparatively stable for now. Angela 06:49, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks!
--Ruhrjung 06:52, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mäntsälä Rebellion

Hi! You changed some of the links pointing to the Mäntsälä rebellion article to Mäntsälä Rebellion. Were you going to move the article there? I made it into a redirect for now. -- Jniemenmaa 20:17, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You managed to write the article before I found that out. I saw it as a red link. But anyhow. I believe the capital character is correct. But I agree that English rules for capitalization are tricky. Maybe better ask someone who knows?
--Ruhrjung 20:33, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Please be careful with your "English for runaways". You should have learned from your "marionette regime". "Balticum" is likewise not used in English. --Wik 08:00, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi Ruhrjung, I am glad to see that you apparently returned after your long time-out. Wik was temporarily banned last night, and I hope that a permanent ban will follow. I hope to see you around soon. (I will now delete your name from Missing Wikipedians ;-) ) -- Baldhur 07:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! ;-)
I don't know about the future.
There were a few too many encounters of wikipedians who were more keen on hasty revertions than on checking facts or considering their view of reality possibly being incomplete. Schlesien/Danzig disputes were adding up. Some users and some topics would be easy to avoid, but others seem omnipresent.

-(

--Ruhrjung 08:22, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Ruhrjung. Yikes! I had no idea such a straightforward statement was so contentious. As the sentence was phrased when I came across it, it was barely comprehensible. I tried to make it as standard as possible without changing the meaning (so far as I can tell). I have no interest in getting involved in a political debate, and I have no future plans to edit the Åland article.

That's the problem. People with Swedish mother tongue try to agree with people with Finnish mother tongue on compromise wordings in English. The result is often barely comprehensible. Please, why don't you make one more attempt to get the first paragraphs readable?--Ruhrjung 16:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't want to get into a controversy, but we work collaboratively here. I just tried to improve the readabilty of the first paragraphs of the history section. They're now much closer to standard English; I'll let you make sure the facts are presented accurately. -- Seth Ilys

Just so you, someone with more knowledge of the subject, can improve it... the current sentence: " The issue was important not only for Sweden but for Great Britain, whose trade in the Baltic was threatened, why the islands were demilitarized following the Crimean War." makes absolutely no sense in standard English. I can't make out what it means at all (and therefore, I have no suggestions as to how to improve it... -- Seth Ilys 16:30, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• The control of Åland, situated at the mouth of Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Bothnia, was important for sea trade. For Britain, for Russia and for Sweden (Prussia and the Dutch were not really in this game at this time).
• Britain's improved situation after the successful Crimean War made it possible to roll back Russia's strength in the Baltic Sea. The demilitarization of Åland was a means. That was of course also valuable for Sweden - both for admirals and for commerce.

--Ruhrjung 16:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On Communists in the Winter War

I've moved your comments to the Talk:Winter War page Lefty 19:37, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)

OOPS!

In an unpardonable oversight, I forgot to welcome you back. Allow me to correct my faux pas. I welcome you back most heartily. BTW what do you think about the job Bryan Derksen did on Continuation War? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 11:39, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. The Continuation War article seems to be, basically, restored to a pre-Graculus version. The addition of weasel-expressions is not really to my fancy, but... You can see what I might have wished to do with the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Ruhrjung/Continuation_War&action=history

--Ruhrjung 07:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Baltic ports

The table is already in one place. What I wanted to ensure, is that it has separated chapter. #1 it is importants #2 because I added some links that point to this specific chapter. 1 000 000 number for Tricity is explained on the Polish Tricity page. You will find exactly what was calculated. Cautious 14:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You could have brought the issue to the talk page. This and similar incidents are unfortunately good at curbing wikipedia contributors' interest - not only mine. -- Ruhrjung 14:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

germany

You wrote: "Between 1953 and 1991 the government was the West German government"

Not correct. There was never a state called "West Germany". The Federal Republic of Germany was and is the Federal Republic of Germany. The only thing that happened in 1990, was that the previously Soviet-occupied territory of DDR was annexed by Germany. It is the same state.
Nico 09:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Nico (and I'm not ironic!), (what's your first language, by the way? Although I hold on to the principle that communication on en.wikipedia.org ought to be in English, one can sometimes know better how to express oneself, and sometimes understand better how one might be perceived, if one knows what language the other part associates in.)

We might differ slightly on this point. (My opinion is that neither of the Germanys were fully souvereign before 1991.) But that is of lesser relevance, since we have to keep in mind that the ordinary English language reader (of the BdV article) is not knowing or interested or receptive of this issue. For an ordinary reader, there did exist two Germanys during the Cold War.

Remember that google ranks wikipedia high. Hence the article must be written with the unknowing www-surfer in mind. The purpose of the BdV-article is not to dispute the status of East Germany, but to inform about BdV. That work is done in vain if the prose of the first sentences is not comparably inviting, or if the article gives an anyhow unreliable impression. And here we come to your wording "the federal German government". The reader has seen the years 194x-1991, and might expect to find a reference to either West- or East-Germany. When the reader instead finds the word federal there, which rather would belong in a US or Australian context, resistance is introduced in the reader's taking in of the message, and the reader is less prone to believe the text to be "correct", "authoritative" and "in accordance with what is right and what 'we all know'". This is totally unneccessary. And in this very case also easy to avoid.

The discussion on the status of BRD and DDR belongs in an article whose subject is exactly that, but in the context of the BdV article, it is of peripherial interest, unless it's needed to explain the actual meaning of a quotation.

regards!
Ruhrjung 09:46, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

population transfer

Can you understand how your preference for the therm population transfer instead of ethnic cleansing may be considered offensive by the persons affected (and, secondarily, by their younger relatives)?

Is your ambition to provoke people into supporting Nico?
--Ruhrjung 17:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No I don't understand. My own mother and her whole family were victims of your "ethnic cleansing" and to me or my mom the term population transfer MAY NOT be considered offensive. Ethnic cleansing took place during WW II. Population transfer was a best way they could think of, after the war, to avoid another ethnic cleansing in the future.

My ambition is to use common sense, follow my conscience and be very self critical.
Regards
Space Cadet 17:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

May I ask if you consider ethnic cleansing to be synonymous with population transfer? If not, what's the difference? From what you write above, one could get the impression that transfer was done by you and cleansing by your adversaries. Then it would boil down to the question whether "you" or "your adversaries" were to be granted right of expression on wikipedia.

Anyway, I got an answer on my question. You do not understand that you might be perceived as offensive. I'll have to think over that.

(BTW, you're obviously my elder. My mother was born after the war. My great-aunt, however, worked in Wroclaw (as we know, then called Breslau) til the end. She basically refuses to speak of the last years of the war, and the rest of the 1940s, but I believe her view to be that ethnic Germans, particularly on the countryside, were subjects of terror aimed at forcing them to leave "volountarily", and that this in most cases had nothing with the individuals' prior actions to do, but solely with their ethnicity.)
--Ruhrjung 18:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again: "Ethnic cleansing took place during WW II. Population transfer was a best way they could think of, after the war, to avoid another ethnic cleansing in the future".

Responsible for ethnic cleansing: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia. Responsible for population transfer: Allied Powers at Potsdam Conference. Me - I did not transfer anybody. My adversaries - biased people.

You don't neccessarily have to be that individualistic. I ment your as in wasi, not twoi.

...and it doesn't answer my question.--Ruhrjung 19:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do understand that I can be perceived as a lot of different things by "my adversaries", no matter what I say.

How do you think you would be perceived if you let the term ethnic cleansing remain?--Ruhrjung 19:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

About Your grandma - with all respect to suffering of others, ask her if she would have rather been Polish during Nazi occupation, and then for forty five years of communist terror.

Space Cadet 18:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding my grand-aunt (her sister, my grand-mother, is dead), I know that she had rather been Polish after the Nazi-occupation. I also know that her Polish was quite fluent, although accented, still 50 years after the war, which showed when I had a Polish lover. They clearly enjoyed chatting together in Polish. I also know, that she most definitely did not feel to have suffered more than anyone else, nor that Germans suffered anyhow "more" than others, only that mentioning the German suffers have/had been supressed – to some degree maybe comparable with how the industrial killing of the whole Jewry overshadowed the considerable suffereings inflicted on Slavonics everywhere the Nazis were in charge. (Don't now interpret this as an attempt to villify only the Nazis for German bullying of Poles.)

And, No, I'm not going to question her. The answer is obvious, and it would only be disrespectful and inconsiderate.
--Ruhrjung 19:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I am not necessary your elder. I was a late child, kind of a surprise to everybody. Cadet

:-)

--Ruhrjung 19:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I oppose using ethnic cleansing of ethnics Germans on the basis of the story you just told us. Your relative was transfered, despite the fact, that she was, at least partly, Polish origins. You are right, there were no fair treatment of Germans, Polish-Germans, German-Polish. There were also no fair treatment of Poles. I think if Poland retained her government, dealing with Germans would have been more fair. If there were Polish police in place, they would not become victims of criminals. However, PKWN found "milicja" recruited out of criminals and formed administration out of criminals. Poles voted mostly against the governmnet. In referendum 1946, most of Poles from "Recovered land" voted even against the new borders ( they prefered old one). Using ethnic clensing cliche makes wrong impressions on reader. He should rather refer to comumism, Polish betrayal and so on. By the way, I like Germans from Poland. I believe they are more inteligent thanks to Polish roots. Cautious 15:19, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I get it! When I wrote <your "ethnic cleansing">, you thought I meant "yours and your people's". No! I meant that my mother fell victim to, WHAT YOU LIKE TO REFER TO AS "ethnic cleansing". In other words she got expelled from Lwow when she was 7. If I let the term remain I would be perceived as someone who either doesn't care or has no idea what's being discussed. Cadet

---

The ethnic cleansing of the Germans is listed as an example of ethnic cleansing in the article dealing with the issue. Anyway, as for West/"East" Germany, your arguments makes sense, Ruhrjung. (jeg ville iøvrigt formode, at du taler dansk? Svenska går ochså, även om det inte är mitt modersmål) -- Nico 09:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your support on the Weimar Republic issue. PMA 14:19, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

Freedom of sock-puppets

Hi Ruhrjung, long time no see - but it feels good to have you around :) On Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship you wrote: I think institutionalizing sock-puppets is a particularly bad idea. Although... quite another thing would have been if all sysop-accounts and bureaucrat-accounts as a rule were separate from the officer's ordinary account. I could see a meaning in the distinction between a Angela account and the Angela (admin) account. I believe that this is an interesting thought experiment. One must assume that many Wikipedians, and quite probably several sysops have not disclosed their sock puppet accounts (see for a possible example User:Louis_Kyu_Won_Ryu who was quite probably an experienced Wikipedian), but it remains unknown how many actually split their identity into sysop and ordinary accounts. It would be interesting to explore whether identity splitting could be put to any beneficial use. I have (although rarely) edited articles anonymously just to get rid of the self-imposed ideas and ideals of my Wikipedia persona, and that gave me a pleasant, newbie-ish feeling of freedom, and perhaps even a greater freedom of thought or expression. Which leads me to believe that editing under a different identity may be helpful in some cases. I have no idea what others think about this - the idea of encouraging personality splits might very well be seen as a kind of slippery slope. What do you think? Cheers, Kosebamse 00:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I, quite honestly, don't know for sure!

But one of my ideas is that the impressive value of a sysop action would increase if it was obvious when a sysop acted in that capacity ("ex cathedra") :-)

...and also that it would be easier for both other administrators and for the common people to differentiate between controversial edits done in the role as common wikipedian and (maybe) controversial actions carried out as sysop or buraucrat.

Regarding freedom, I think the issue is double-edged, at least!
--Ruhrjung 00:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't remember what I said about Austria or where I said it.

You ask

• What is, for instance, the established view on the "Germans" in South Tyrol? Are they "ethnic Austrians" maybe?

I think the most common usage is to call them ethnic Germans, or the German-speaking minority. I have never seen them referred to as "ethnic Austrians." I think the common view is that "Austrian" referes to a nationality not an ethnicity. German-speaking minorities in other countries will generally be called ethnic Germans unless they specifically call themselves something else - the German-speakers in Romania call themselves Saxons for example.

• And the Danes in Schleswig-Holstein, are they Danish nationals or are they ethnic Danes?

They would be called ethnic Danes or the Danish-speaking minority.

• I'm afraid my mindset is too much coloured by French and German discourse. I hold Bavarians to be of Bavarian nationality, like Austrians are of Austrian nationality, but all of them being of German ethnicity.

There hasn't been a Bavarian nationality in a legal sense since 1871, but I don't know what Bavarians now consider themselves to be. I agree that all German-speakers should generally be describes as being of German ethnicity unless they obviously are not. Adam 08:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there probably was a Bavarian nationality up to 1918 - the constituent states of the 2nd Reich maintained a certain degree of sovereignty, especially the big ones like Bavaria. My point in coming here, though, was to ask Ruhrjung why he edited the Prussia article in such a manner as to decrease comprehensibility in English. I certainly mean no disrespect to editors for whom English is not a first language, but if that is the case, why make significant changes that largely serve to make articles more poorly written? john 08:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have already tidied up at Prussia, it's no big deal. Adam 09:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thank both of you!
--Ruhrjung 09:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Free state

probably. Shall do. Morwen 18:28, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

24 hour bans for edit wars

Hi Ruhrjung,

I've amended the proposal on 24 hour bans for edit wars. In short, the amendment calls for a quickpoll to take place before any such ban can be implemented. If you support this, I'd like you to add your vote in favor to the 24 hour ban vote, with the comment "with quickpolls".

I know that you'd like to see longer bans, but it is important for us to get a system in place first. I also believe longer bans should be handled by the arbitration commission.—Eloquence 22:13, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

I didn't mind you being there, but I have now set the room to invite only as I think it should be up to Tim and Perl who they want there. Please can you ask them if you want to be there for the next mediation. If there's anything you think could have been done differently, I would be interested in your feedback. Thanks. Angela. 19:19, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

I won't ask them. Most probably I won't be around, and in any case I do not believe it would make the situation any more safe for any of them.--Ruhrjung 19:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Imperial Germany was just a redirect to German Empire - that was my motivation for changing it. PMA 10:29, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

---

Common Ruhrjung: I have German grandmother, my nanny said the Willy times were the best, I like some aspects of German culture and I hope will soon speak the fluent German. Yet, factual forgery in the common history makes me mad. Especially, that Polish side made a lot of effort to clean legends and myths, but there are people on German side that want to preserve their biased version of history. Nico and Helga should be banned! Cautious 16:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

You have been invited to join in mediation regarding placenames in Central Europe. Please accept or decline this request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation# English/Polish/German/Nazi names of the Polish cities . You may also indicate who, if anybody, you would like to act as your representative if you do not want to participate personally, as well as your preferences regarding the choice of mediator. Tuf-Kat 23:18, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

See talk page! My impression was, that we were just discussing more and more issues with the current version, when you restored one of the ancient one, that is full of factual errors. Please answer the issues I raised on the talk page in the chapter: real dispute! Cautious 12:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of course issues are discussed, but the version I restored had been unquestioned for several months. The issues discussed is according to my judgement mostly NPOV disputes rather than factual. They can, according to my view, become factual if one party insist on suppressing other parties' points of view instead of presenting them beside eachother. I think you harm wikipedia by extensive use warnings for inaccuracy.--Ruhrjung 13:16, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I remind you. This is list of factual problems.

• 8.1 Header
• 8.2 Ethnic Germans versus citziens of Germany.
• 8.3 Volksdeutsche
• 8.4 Some of Volksdeutsche were not ethnic Germans.
• 8.5 Siberia deportations
• 8.6 Evacuation, transfer, emigration
• 8.7 Numbers involved
• 8.8 Evacuation is included?

If somebody states, that 15 milions of Germans were expelled this is factual problem. If some states, that ethnic Germans were expelled, it is factual problem, since the basis for expulsion was having German citizenship. Factual dispute is the most apropriate description of what is wrong here. The fact, there we had had the factually wrong version of article for month without warning, it is question of wiki credibility. Cautious 13:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But if you make additions to the article instead of suppressing the point of view that you dislike, you'll isolate the extremists and gain support by the broad majority of wikipedians if and when they glance at the article. Instead of making hidden changes, like [[Volksdeutsche]] --> [[Volksdeutsche|German citizens]] you could write "Germans" with quotation marks in initial and compressed sentences as long as why quotation marks are used is made clear some sentences further down, for instance along the line [[BdV|expellee representatives]] assert not only [[citizen]]s of [[Nazi Germany]] to have been affected be these forced transfers, although [[your authority of choise]] argue that no [[ethnic Germans]] except for [[Third Reich]] citizens fell viktim the harsh fate.
--Ruhrjung 14:08, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I found very interesting source page to my article: User:Cautious/Fall of German populations in Eastern Europe

http://www.nachkriegsdeutschland.de/demographische_verschiebungen.htm

Tell me what you think about it? Cautious 00:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it's fairly good. (Well, Americans from the West coast would have shouted splendid and extremely good and so on... :-) Its major advantage is that it lacks the monomanic focusing on the worst atrocities, typical for a BdV context. The relation of incidents in the east is also free of the ideological charge (anti-Communist and anti-Slavic) I'm so tired of. Not that I am particularly fond of Communists myself, but it's more important to keep in mind that German policies on and behind the East Front had been exceptionally barbaric, and that Russian and Polish ill-doings don't need to be explained by Communism or Slavicism. — There was nothing in the article which I believe to be in conflict with Truth or what I knew before. As far as I'm concerned, I think you rely on a reasonably credible source if you refer to that article for figures and numbers. To its advantage, it's available on www.
--Ruhrjung 01:39, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anti-American sentiment

Thanks for the hint. I have moved the paragraph to the foreign policy section. I hope to add some detail to the section eventually. In my youth the US seemed to regard the Caribbean as its possession. I'd also like to add Mexico as an example to balance Canada. It just occurred to me that the US has invaded both its neighbours, but they have never invaded it (I think). And then there's Vietnam, which is not mentioned in the article, or wasn't when I first edited it. Trontonian 13:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gdynia

Ruhrjung, I don't understand your reverts. Current version gives German name and German re name from WW2. Why you need long discussion in the header, about which German name comes from where?? In addition, Gdynia is slavic name, and Gdingen is merely translation of it. This applied to fishing village of 900 inhabitants. I would understand you, if Gdingen was German city that went to Poland and so on. Can we argue over something, that makes more sense? Cautious 09:13, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe to have written it elsewhere, but I don't find it now. Anyway: The way it was expressed opened for the interpretation that the Gdingen name should have been a recent invention, which in the current inflamed state of affairs is less suitable, as it invites people who feel strongly for emphasizeing the long and proud German history to make edits ("corrections") which people who feel strongly for eradicating any sign and trace of pre-Nazi presence of Germans in turn would feel provoced to "counter-correct".
--Ruhrjung 13:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The version you have proposed is OK. Cautious 14:54, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Gdynia proposed changes in the history section. Cautious 07:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Valaam Monastery

My apologies if any of my changes introduced errors or obscurities; such was not my intent. I meant to clarify some unusual idioms and fix some minor grammatical mistakes; if I removed relevant material, changed the meaning substantially, or damaged the overall presentation of the article, then feel free to change or undo my edits. (But please keep the disambiguated Great Schism link; that was the reason I started editing the article in the first place.) --67.71.78.53 02:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course I will.

But do you consider "neighbourhood" and "East-Rome"/"West-Rome" unusual idioms? Then that has to be worded differently, for instance like "what would later become Finland" and similar clumsy constructs, which I am not too fond of (but who am I to have opinions on a foreign language?).
Thank you for your answer!
--Ruhrjung 02:43, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

"East-Rome" and "West-Rome" are rather unusual idioms, and I was concerned that the average English reader might not appreciate the meaning of East-Rome or the metonymy of both terms. (My solution wasn't much of an improvement, I now see.) Perhaps "Eastern Orthodoxy" and "Western Catholicism" would be the best terms, with links as necessary.

Neighbourhood is a bit colloquial for my (pedantic) tastes; "region", "land", and "area" all retain the same meaning, but have a slightly more formal tone. HTH --67.71.78.53 02:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hans Rudel

Thanks for the note. Not a particular interest of mine either. Yes, I get most of my edit candidates from Recent Changes, and VfD (like making Max Baer a reasonable stub), then Random Page, or sometimes Cleanup. Occasionally I'll write something I know about, like SAM-e or Subaru (Loyale, Brat, Outback). Other times I just stumble across something I know little about, but think it should be covered, and do a little research, like for ticker tape. Niteowlneils 01:37, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What I meant by "Old Europe" has nothing to do with current Europe versus US controversies. I meant that the belief that a piece of soil can eternally belong to someone or is eternally anything, so that half of Poland is "eternally" Prussia even though it has been inhabited by Poles for nearly 60 years and even though Prussia has been legally abolished, is an Old Europe, old nationalist, idea. Adam 09:27, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

völkisch

Thanks but that was me using a different computer (my usual computer automatically logs me in). Formeruser-83 20:35, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why did you rv völkisch to collectivist? The Nazis weren't collectivist in any economic sense (which is how the word is usually understood). What had been termed "collectivism" is actually a reference to the volk myth. Formeruser-83 23:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, which you won't like, since I perceived the edits as borderline vandalism. In particular, changing Volk to Völk, spelling völkisch as Völkish, and then the change at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, gave me a less-than-serious impression of a sockpuppet on viking raid.

Further, I do not favor filling up the English wikipedia with too many German language articles and loanwords, and my non-native understanding of the English language usage of collectivism was not the same as your.

I am wary overfor Neo-Nazi tendencies to revive old words which has had limited use in post-war German. When inserted in English, one doesn't really know how to handle all their deadweight.

Finally, the Völkish redirect seemed relatively obscure to me. I didn't say much, and my wiki-experience is that such an article, with such a foreign title, is likely not to grow very fast. That is not to say that I found the collectivism article much better, but I guessed it being less of a fringe topic and hence more watched over by the wikipedia community.
--Ruhrjung 00:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Message on Quickpoll

As someone who beleives in empiricism I suggest you help protect scientific skepticism with a vote against Reddi. GrazingshipIV 03:56, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

---

User:Jor, Request for adminship

Might I ask if you have any real opposition to me getting admin status, or is your vote simply because I was commenting out a vandal's I was tracking? — Jor (Talk) 18:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not in the meaning of "something else than I say" or "hidden agenda" or so, but in the meaning I wrote there. I wouldn't have written it if I hadn't made that observation also elsewhere, i.e. before. Yes, my vote was prompted by your action. I hadn't voted so if you hadn't acted so in this very instance. I perceived it, so to say, too demonstrative from your side to act that much self-sufficient and prestige-sensitive at that very time at that very page. Basically, I agree with User:Alex S (or whatever he now is better known as) and User:Moncrief.
— I do not believe in (trying to) advancing people with my own POVs to more influential positions, so it has nothing with your or my POVs to do.
--Ruhrjung 22:19, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. — Jor (Talk) 11:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment

As a matter of fact I was looking for someone that would have enough authority to make our problematic friend listen. I'm afraid I have no influence on his behaviour since he simply ignores all my comments and requests for explanation. However, your case seems to be a little different since he seems to actually esteem you in some way. So, perhaps this is the way to go? Good luck!Halibutt 11:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I would be very happy if I could accomplish this, but at the moment I fear the situation is too heated. That's not to say that I've given up. Only that I see it as more of a long-term project. Compare also with our newly banned colleague. He is, in my opinion, in dire need of guidance. My chief concern is not his (or Nico's) POVs, but their bad impact on the social setting, i.e. this part of the wikipedia community that contributes to articles on Central European matters. If they were calmed down, also others (best not to mention too many names) might become more cooperative.
--Ruhrjung 11:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not polite to talk about other people when they are listening. Yes, I may in some degree be rude towards some Polish contributors, but I am terribly tired of uncooperative persons like User:Gdansk with sock puppets, cautious with sock puppets or Space Cadet, of whom at least two are calling other contributors, and especially me, nazis all the time. Most Polish contributors, with a few exceptions, seems to be supporting their goals. I hate revert wars and the whole problem users thing, but my normal procedure is to list any people who is attacking me there on that page themselves. And Halibutt's complaint was just too far out. Calling a "proposal" to use the Polish name of Danzig only by a banned troll "constructive" is simply just ridiculous. Nico 16:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I try to say the same things behind peoples' back as I dare to say to them face-to-face. In this case I hope it's obvioius that I say the same things to you as I say about you, and you could chose to like my frankness and hope that I follow my anti-slandering princles.

Nico, to boil it down: I think you are rather intelligent, and I think you've proved that during your time here. I think, furthermore, that you represent views which are rather extreme, but that is no reason to suppress or hide them. You seem to have quite some energy to put into projects you are interested in. Unfortunately, you are also easy to provoke, and you respond sometimes on provokations in a provokative way, which is unfortunate as it tends to lead to a polarization and heatened conflicts which in the long run make wikipedia articles less worth reading, and then they are also less worth working on. I understand very well that you don't like a bunch of the contributors with a Polish POV, and that you dislike some of their contributions even more, but... as far as I understand, it's even in your interest to appear likable instead of aggressive to them.

As I tried to convince User:Cautious above, "if you make additions to the article instead of suppressing the point of view that you dislike," you'll gain support by the broad majority of wikipedians.

See Talk:Hero City and the page history for Hero City to get an example of something that (at least for the time being) seems to have a happy ending.

You write: Most Polish contributors, with a few exceptions, seems to be supporting their goals. This I dispute! I would rather say, that most Polish contributors can understand them, as they represent views which in a less extreme form are quite common in Poland. My hope is that the more balanced of them with a pro-Polish point of view could take it as their task to moderate the more extremist contributors. But your actions tend to unite them behind the extremists instead - i.e. polarization - which I consider bad.

--Ruhrjung 01:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for being so honest. I believe you are largely right, and appreciate your comments. I was going to say something about my views on these German-Polish issues, explain them, but I just changed my mind. Another time, maybe.

When talking about happy endings, Silesia is another example. Anyway, I'm glad you are back. Nico 02:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've not been "away"! I have a work with irregular hours, and I was out in Copenhagen last night. :-)
--Ruhrjung 03:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

well, I was actually referring to your longer absence from wikipedia since november(?) last year until recently. I guess I missed you. Nico 03:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk aka Danzig

What do you mean?What proposal are you talking about?Halibutt

Well, the proposal has since then moved on to Talk:Gdańsk/temp. :-)
--Ruhrjung 01:58, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for comments

If you have evidence or any remarks to add at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nico, please do so.Halibutt

It is my sincerest opinion that Wikipedia is not served by provoking Nico even more. I do not wish to contribute more than I have done[1].
--Ruhrjung 01:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I think we all agreed that nobody wants Nico banned and that the only purpose of that page was to find some way to explain to Nico that the world is not black&white. He didn't listened so far, perhaps some day he will. Anyway, my purpose was not to provoke Nico; the only thing I'd like to provoke him to is some reflection, nothing more.

What you write about the extremists becoming the nucleus in face of external danger is obviously true. However, the big problem is that some people treat all Poles as if we were Cautious, no matter what we say or do. That's not the way to go and I feel that my fellow hot-headed countrymen have calmed down a little recently. Now it's time for Nico to show his good will. Refraining from the page will stay here no matter what attitude would be a good first step, don't you think?Halibutt 03:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung, apparently I did all I could to win Nico for the common, wiki good. To no effect. We failed and apparently all who contributed to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nico page simply lost their time, since the only reaction from User:Nico was to declare that the page and proposal of a gesture of goodwill are a personal attack ([2]). Please tell me what else can be done? If we won't find a solution fast, I'm going to list Nico on the ban list and I'm sure I'll find plenty of evidence and many people will support the idea. I'm simply fed up with his edit wars and disregard for facts, discussion pages and versions agreed upon there.

But perhaps there still is a choice? Perhaps I failed to notice some other option? Perhaps there is some User that could talk to him or send him a personal letter and try to convince him once again? Any ideas?Halibutt 01:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Karelia

I actually did look at the map you suggested. I used this page (at the same site) as a reference: [3]. Too bad it is only in finnish... But it gives quite good definitions on the different terms. But, please comment on the actual page, as an "outsider" you can probably point out some POV that the rest of us might miss. -- Jniemenmaa 11:33, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reply

At my talk page. Regards -- sannse (talk) 11:04, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cautious

Have you seen the articles I actually moved?? It is obvious that they sould be moved to proper places and I am convinced that they are better right now. Cautious 14:39, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course I've seen them.

The issue is not whether they ought to be moved or not, but that you forgot to discuss the issue in advance, which might cause more problems than the move itself solved.
--Ruhrjung 14:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger of Expulsion of Germans after World War II and the article about evacuation. Expulsion should be about expulsions, evacuation about the evacuation. We should only add the head article to connect them. Cautious 14:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We are in no hurry. There is probably plenty of time to discuss that.
--Ruhrjung 14:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dawn_of_German_East

I am preparing the new article, dealing with the whole process User_talk:Cautious/Dawn_of_German_East, while Expulsion of Germans after World War II should remain the description of one of the phases of the process.

Please contribute your comments. Cautious 07:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support in my admin nomination, Ruhrjung. I especially appreciate that you took so much time to review my material before voting. I'm really very flattered. Cecropia 03:33, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Erika Steinbach

I seem to be putting a lot of time here into an article that I don't care about at all. Personally, while some versions are better than others (I think your most recent version looks pretty good), I don't especially care. Why not just let the POV warriors revert each other until the page requires protection, and then protect it on whatever version? john 08:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I try to show that there are alternatives to reversions. That's why. :-)
--Ruhrjung 08:07, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tried it too. It doesn't seem to be convincing anyone. john 08:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No... I know... ;-/

I am convinced that the wikipedia software is flawed on this point. :-> (You knwo, humans are as they are, only software can be improved.) I believe at least proposals for changes of controversial articles ought to be delayed a week under which it had not to be opposed by too many (say 25% of them who care to take a stance) in order to get valid (and of course sockpuppets must get avoided by counting IP address netblocks.
--Ruhrjung 08:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi,

Thanks for your comment about Great Britain and United Kingdom. There are a lot of misunderstandings about the geopolitics.

Politically:
England + Scotland + Wales = Great Britain
Great Britain + Northern Ireland = United Kingdom The United Kingdom came into being on 1 Jan 1801.

Linguistically:
Britain = United Kingdom British = belonging to the United Kingdom

But note well that Great Britain only refers to the limited political group that defines only a part of the nation state (see above). It is the use of the key word Great that is so specific that it sounds deliberate. It is actually regarded as offensive in some contexts. Some people make the mistake of using the term Great Britain in the belief that it is a more polite and formal term than merely Britain. In fact it really would be more accurate if this term were Lesser Britain or Partial Britain. This is the error on several pages that I was correcting.

Geographically: British Isles is the set of islands on which the two countries of Ireland (Eire) + United Kingdom exist. A large part of the United Kingdom (Great Britain), happens to be on the larger island of the British Isles. That causes some people to equate the political and geographical terms.

I have not heard the term Britannic island before so I cannot speculate on the meaning.

There are times when people correctly say Great Britain in official usage. Amazingly, there are times when Great Britain is used with an incorrect meaning but is still the correct official term. This is usually because of an error in some international committee that did not get corrected. With all these anomalies, unless you know what you are doing, the term Great Britain should not be used. Simply say Britain or the United Kingdom or UK.

People also make mistakes by saying England when they are referring to Britain.

In the case of the Viking page, I did read it before making the change. The reference postdates 1801. In most cases I changed it to United Kingdom because most cases postdate 1801, but in some cases I changed it to England or something else (in at least one medieval example that predated the Union with Scotland). To be honest, I think a British author would probably have used the colloquial term Britain rather than United Kingdom in many of the cases, but so far I have not stopped to think about that. I simply made all the changes to the formal form.

Respectable references are:
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp
http://www.britainusa.com/faq/showfaq.asp?SID=273

But it is always a topic that fascinates me. Thanks for bringing it up.
Bobblewik 10:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Yes

Glad to agree with someone :) Pfortuny 07:22, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Political power / International Power

I included a paragraph about power (international) ont the political power page. Now it links both in the text and in the See: also... I was actually typing in that paragraph simultaniously as you placed the see also link.... I don't think it hurts to link two times. Especially if this article grows in the future

MrMambo 10:03, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that.
Personally, I dislike exaggerated see-also lists.
--Ruhrjung 10:05, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why did you revert my change under "early kingdoms"? Stating that the early kingdoms emerged during the 11th century requires a very narrow and recent definition of "kingdom" as a centralised government. In contemporary sources, such as the icelandic sagas and in Beouwulf, "kingdom" does not have that meaning at all. Shouldn't the expression "early kingdom" refer to what "kingdom" referred to in early sources? Wiglaf

1/ There is a link to Early kingdoms. The details are to be put there, as is actually already done by you.
2/ Your sentence was broken.
3/ The sentence that the early kingdoms emerged makes sence seen from abroad, where people before the christianization had no idea about internal organisation of Scandinavia - only known by the representation through Vikings.
--Ruhrjung 11:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Eastern Front changes

I looked at your changes already and they looked good, thanks! Stan 21:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Väinö I of Finland

Did you mean to write "manywhere" on yr last change to Väinö I of Finland? Ensiform 23:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't know! Probably since I'd recently seen manywhere somewhere and become influenced, or something! Feel free to improve, as long as you don't start to state that the man didn't exist of something! ;-)))
--Ruhrjung 08:59, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• OK. don't know anything about him but have improved the wording. Don't worry, the crank you are having an edit conflict with will stop sometime. Ensiform 12:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Livonia

I noticed you changed the overused word "region" to "land of Livonians" in Livonia article. Thanks for trying to improve the wording but that is not quite accurate. Livonians populated only about 20% of the land that was later named Livonia. I changed it back to "region" and inserted an explanation later in the article. Andris 01:23, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

No problem!

I thought it was an improvement. If it wasn't, ...well, nothing to do about that!
--Ruhrjung 11:42, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re:Germany/Germany

Germany today may have de facto different borders than previously, but really, a lot of countries have changed their borders after 1945. Poland, for instance, have lost the eastern part as well, an area even bigger than the lost eastern part of Germany. Also, remember that Germany claimed the eastern part of pre-war Germany or reserved the right to claim it until 1990, and did only give up that right because it was forced to do in order to have West and Middle Germany reunited. Take also into account the Hallstein doctrine. Considering Germany (Deutsches Reich) and Germany (the Federal Republic) two different states is utter nonsense. I know some leftists in Germany want to do it, but there are reasons that Germany in the English, French or Scandinavian world, or in short: the world outside Germany, is considered being exactly the same state as founded by Bismarck. In Scandinavian schools, the children learn 1871 as the date of foundation of Germany. 1949 is hardly mentioned. To non-Germans, 1871 and 1990 are the two important dates.

Regards, Nico 19:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget the 1970 treaty... Halibutt 21:38, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

West and "Middle Germany" reunited? I live in 2004, what year does Nico live in? Get-back-world-respect 22:12, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Consider readability?

Answer to your comments on my talk page. Get-back-world-respect 22:12, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to tell me? Get-back-world-respect 22:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That your chosen lay-out is uninviting and results in a loss of readers.
--Ruhrjung 22:35, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are only two short paragraphs, the second one has a concise title. How do you think should I improve the layout? Get-back-world-respect 22:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• discussion on Belligerent / Nonbelligerent moved to Talk:Belligerent

Status quo and status quo ante

Since you wrote the original article for status quo, I wonder if you'd examine it and status quo ante to see if they're still accurate. I removed the comment that it's short for status quo ante erat, but put it back if you think it's important. Actually, looking at it now, I don't think the current definitions are good enough. It should have a very literal translation of the Latin, which would be something along the lines of "The state of things as it- " and then say that the verb is missing, but generally implies the present tense "is" unless context indicates otherwise.

I've forgotten most of the little Latin I learned. Mike Mackerm 18:26, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm a lay-man who've learned a few factoids about Latin along the dozen-or-so other languages I've had professional reason to learn some simple phrases in.
--Ruhrjung 20:56, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

OK. Time to call my uncle, who earns his living with this stuff. Mackerm 22:34, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

US and Israel or US vs Islam

You need to have more information than a mis-statement by George Bush to create a heading called "anti-muslim tendencies" on Anti-American sentiment. GrazingshipIV 23:40, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

That might well be so, I've no problem to agree with you so far that it would be good to have a richer text there. However, I disagree with puting the anti-Muslim policies (represented by the "Crusade" against Islam) under the pro-Israel heading; and I question the relevance of discussing if it was a mis-statement or a slip of the tounge revealing the true sentiments behind the US actions. The statement is made, and has had its impact together with US policies that have targeted Muslims in a way more or less resembling how US policymakers made World-Communism into The Big Enemy after WWII. Finally, I've made it a modus vivendi to avoid contacts with VV as far as possible, why I don't intende to participate much in editing that article.

(You may also want to see: User:Ruhrjung#Anti-American bias.)
--Ruhrjung 20:56, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Barbarians inside

What are you referring to? My role at the Gdańsk page ended with the new version of the article. We agreed on a compromise (note that I was in favour of the other option, yet I obey the rules we set democratically) and I can't remember the last time I made any edits there..

May 20th, two times supporting them who work against stable versions.

The same for Erika Steinbach: I proposed a compromise on May 19th, it was apparently ignored by the rest so I gave up. So where's the problem, Ruhrjung? Halibutt 01:41, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

The problem is, that it was half past two, half past a bottle of wiskey, and I possibly expressed myself slightly more emotional than I would otherways, but factually: look at the list of recent contributors on each side at those two articles. You know, as well as I, that this kind of flip-flop editing, destroy the mutual respect, and that the likely outcome is that sane contributors give up unless they get mentally converted into warriors.

In my sincerest opinion: It doesn't improve the article. It doesn't improve Wikipedia. Quite the contrary.

See how eager people on both sides are to declare any compromise "outdated". I wonder what to do about that.

--Ruhrjung 07:42, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I knew someone will misunderstand me, but I didn't expect it would be you. Take a closer look at the edit history of Gdansk article ([4]) and see the reason behind my reverts, it's all explained well both in the edit comments and on the Talk page: I simply wanted the anon to stop deleting important pieces of information and move them to where they belong. I could've done it myself, but with all probability the guy wouldn't have noticed at all and would not learn the basic rule we all should adopt: think twice before you delete. If he had a lesson out of it - great. If not - a pity. Halibutt 12:56, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Doing that, I note that the long list of names were inserted in the intro by two probable sockpuppets[5][6] (no offence intended, it's only my assumption, and I don't think sockpuppets are more despisable than people who like me state that they won't put their picture or home address into their presentation) and inbetween removed by 212.181.86.76[7]. It's worth to note that there were dozens of edits inbetween, also you edited, and the list of editors who might be seen as silently approving these actual changes of the initial paragraph is in no way conclusive.

Then the long list was moved to the names section[8] by David Gerard, and duplicated to the intro[9] by 217.96.26.85 (an internet café in Koszalin) rather late in the evening of May 16th.

In the next hours me[10], David G.[11], and Rick K.[12] removed the duplication, which in turn was re-inserted into the introductory paragraph by an AOL-account and Space Cadet, and the next day effectively endorsed by Szopen[13], which made me disappointed; then removed by 212...[14], and re-inserted by you[15], which made me even more disappointed.

— Please note that the Names section wasn't touched. What it was all about, was whether to duplicate the text from the end of the second section into the first paragraph of the first section.

Then:

• 212: This has been discussed at the talk page - what meaning does such a discussion have if no-one follows the result of the discussion?
  • Halibutt: dear anon, join the discussion (it's at the bottom of the page) and describe your objections there. deletion is not the way to go

12 hours later:

• David: check the diff on this edit - see, it was right there under
  • AOL: revert
• Raul654: revert
  • AOL: revert
• Maximus Rex: revert[16] (plus add Kashubian)
• a calm day with regard to the long list in the intro, four personas edit but endorse the list's absence from the intro
  • AOL: revert (after 15 hours)
• John Kenney: revert
  • Koszalin: revert
• David Gerard: revert
  • AOL: revert (6 hours later)
• David Gerard: revert

The tone at the talk page is what I characterized as barbarized by warfare.

I think it is anything but promising that You, Szopen and Space Cadet sided with the inserter, and that it was solely non-Poles who stood for the restorations. (I don't guess about the inserter being one or two, or if coalesced with any of you. I can't find it important.)

What I do find important is that Wikipedia's intended function, the dogm of immediate effect of edits, make this problem more likely to appear. Any remedy would surely have other disadvantages, but I think it's necessary to be less inviting for people who don't care about cooperation or the result of discussions.

--Ruhrjung 00:42, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not taking part in revert war. What I only care is that Rumia now is city and Rahmel was a village (runway stayed the same I guess). Cautious 22:36, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say so, but the barbarians will always win. No matter what you or I do, there will always turn up a guy who knows better or simply judges by the nationality. And all compromises work only as long as the pages are protected. After that, someone will appear and change it just because. I'm loosing hope any cooperation among the wikipedians is sensible. It works, but have barely any sense. Halibutt 20:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

...but you see what I ment with "your role" now, I guess.
--Ruhrjung 02:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

rise to power

My objection to "rise to power" was that it sounded like a much more gradual process than it actually was. Not sure I swallow the native/non-native argument against seizure (and the word I really wanted to use was "usurpation"), but perhaps we could say "his seizing of power" -- would that help? (If the phrase survives the next round of edit warring, which is doubtful.) Cheers, –Hajor 03:10, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes it would.
--Ruhrjung 03:11, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

Return of an "old friend" to Szczecin

Our favorite sock puppeteer is back over at Szczecin, now calling himself User:PolishPoliticians, and I think I've already reverted three times or so, if you want to help out. john k 05:10, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Halibutt/Allied policy towards Central Europe

Could you help me out with finishing my User:Halibutt/Allied policy towards Central Europe project? What it needs the most is a simple revision and correction. I'm planning to move it to the proper place (probably Western betrayal since that would be the name of the phenomenon in English, but I guess John would oppose) and I don't want this article to get listed on VfD just because there are lots of minor gramatical or factual mistakes. I'd really appreciate your help. Halibutt 22:22, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Naming issues

I have made a proposition in Talk:Gdansk/Naming convention#Other_concepts. In short, it's sing most controversial names when first name appears in artcile and making a msg saying that the names are controversial and pointing to article explaining why. Please, contribute your opinion.Szopen 10:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

German names

Please take note that your recent flooding campaign is against the community discussion that is currently going on. Please reconsider your behaviour. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 09:24, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

I am removing the references to the German language. Oughtn't that make you confident? --Ruhrjung 09:28, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Well, I thought that you are perfectly aware that the very word formerly and its usage in such cases is disputed. Skipping the community discussion and forcing the word does not make me confident in any way. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:04, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

And the reference to a possibly eternal presence of Slavonics is made by the formula formerly also, which ought to make those happy who fear to give false representation of history, but not those who fight to falsify the history. --Ruhrjung 10:52, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you won't think that i was removing the references to older names.. i was only reverting the changes by some anon who was removing all mentions of former German names of Polish cities. Szopen 11:41, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of being sarcastic you could be more constructive. Yes, even I do oppose the form formerly Gottenhafen or formerly Hitlerstadt. Just like I do oppose the term formerly Lwów or formerly Wilno. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 18:31, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Naming wars

Since you were either directly or indirectly once involved into edits revolving around "proper" naming of cities like Gdansk/Danzig etc i thought you may be interested in my proposition in User:Szopen/NamingWar. I would want to create a way aimed at stopping the revert wars in future - through creating something like a msg (in see also list or header) explaining that's there is compromise and why, and by linking to the article explaining changes of the statuses of the Royal Prussia province (I would prefer it ot have it as separate article, not scatter it in plethora other articles). I would be happy to hear from you. Szopen 09:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Greenberg

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joseph Greenberg (economist). I wasn't sure it deserved the attention i gave it, but at this point, it has been an interesting enough object lesson for me that it will certainly have been worth my effort, whatever the outcome. [smile] --Jerzy(t) 18:49, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Summer is over

I've got an eye on you too, beware! :D Cheers [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]

RfA

Thanks a lot for actually going through my edits and the disputes that I've had before voting (I don't think that some other people have done so). And by the way, your English doesn't suck, as you said on your user page. I honestly had no idea that English wasn't your first language. What is your first language? [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 02:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support for my adminship, and for your supportive words. Jayjg 16:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vernichtung

Thank you for bringing the phrase to the attention. I didn't read it carfully. I noticed that an anonymous editor replaced a more neutral term by a less neutal one. The German term Vernichtung (literally meaning "elimination"<->"eradication") is a euphemism for killing; hence these camps are also known as death camps.

"eradication" is a very strong word in its indirect meaning, and it is hardly an euphemism (which is replacement by a more agreeable or less offencive word). Hence the phrase lost is sense. Moreover, the actual euphemism was "Endlösung". Vernichtung was used it its direct sence: extermination, as you wrote. I will fix the phrase accordingly. Mikkalai 01:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gerhard Schröder, Sejm and Prussian Claims Society

Have you heard about the recent declaration by the Polish Sejm? I mean the one about war reparations and such. I wonder what an average German thinks of it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 04:30, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Remember that I haven't lived in Germany for many years. The only one whom I've heard mention it was my great-aunt living in Berlin, but born in East-Prussia, and not without emotional attachment to Poland (although, primarily to that of her youth, and particularily to Wroclaw whereto she went to work as a maid in her early teens). She remarked that Schröder must feel disappointed in the answer he got on his speech (to the Sejm?) earlier in the summer. She also rethorically wondered, what "they" (the Poles) believed they would achieve, but on the other hand I would guess that she and many others rather would tend to view this and much else as a sign of immaturity. — After all, Weimar Germany's decade of democracy shows plenty of examples of immature handling of democracy, so why shouldn't the Poles be allowed to?

The perception of Poles as immature (or something along the same line, like unsophisticated, uncultivated, lesser educated...) seems to me to lie deep in the collective psyche of the Germans — maybe in much similar to how I've realized that Finns are perceived in Sweden, or as many Canadians tend to relate to the population of USA. My close mate from Krakow, who studied medicin in Germany, many times made this point, and thanks to him I think I can see what he saw. Maybe lesser so in the aviation industry where I work now, but most definitely among the more typical working class (women) at a nursing home for elderly, where I worked a couple of months inbetween other jobs, and unquestionably also in the café, bars and restaurant business (where I still work extra now and then), where some accents are considered much more of a stigma than other accents, and the Polish accent is definitely one of those. This is however not necessarily connected to the perception of the Polish state, but maybe an explanation that has a wider appeal than many other.

All in all, I think I don't exaggerate when I say that those (average) Germans who at all have an opinion are surprised and ...verwundert (astonished?). And that is, I believe, an astonishment that has lesser to do with public Polish expressions directed to Germany and much more with the general attitude Poland has shown in relation to all of EU's other members.

I'm pretty much confident that the average German expected that if only Germany went ahead and demonstrated a considerable good will and a noticable degree of favouritism for Poland, then the relations between Poland and Germany would more or less follow the same track as the French-German relations. It doesn't seem to work out that way. ...or at least not yet.

The Preussische Treuhand is nothing I know or care about, and I don't think most Germans do.
--Ruhrjung 10:04, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that's the analisis I needed (as a confirmation of what one of the journalists I like stated recently). Also, you've said that you're working for the aviation industry. Interesting, many of my friends (25% perhaps) study at either Aviation Faculty of the Warsaw University of Science and Technology or Kiev Aviation University (former KIGA). Perhaps I simply have some aviation in my genes... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:19, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome.
Ruhrjung 16:36, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

the Farnaz Fassihi piece

Don't know if you've seen it yet? For instance: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100304X.shtml /Tuomas 09:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!
Ruhrjung 16:37, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

Adminship

Recently I did some analysis of contribution history for Wikipedia, the fruits of which are at Wikipedia:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival. As I reviewed the list, I noted that there are about a dozen longtime contributors who have not been made administrators. You are one of them. Accordingly, I would like to nominate you for adminship, with your permission. If you would appreciate such a nomination, please let me know on my talk page. If you do wish to decline, a note so saying would also be appreciated, though not necessary. Kindest regards, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. There has indeed been some mission drift and policy drift over the months and years. While I respect your demands in the real world, I would like to point out that Wikipedia's "institutional memory" depends upon continuity of involvement of its volunteers. In other words, long-term volunteers are critical to maintain policy consistency and to avoid repeating past mistakes. I hope you'll change your mind, perhaps when your real-life circumstances relax somewhat. I anticipate that in the next couple of years there will be increasing barriers to policy involvement for non-administrators (not a good thing but inevitable), and to head off some of the ill effects of that I'm hoping that more regular contributors who have not previously expressed interest in adminship will step forward to receive it.

Very kindest regards,

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Danish wikipedians' notice board.

You have shown an interest in Denmark or Danish related topics in the past, so I invite you to have a look at Wikipedia:Danish wikipedians' notice board. It is a tool to help people interested in Denmark post articles they'd like to see, and to keep track of the existent coverage of Denmark. It can also serve as a place to address concerns regarding any aspect of Danish coverage on the english wikipedia. Hope you find it useful! In any case, could you please look at it and fill in any articles you know of that are not covered by the list? Thanks,

Peregrine981 04:28, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 14:43, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your message!

Ruhrjung, I received your kind message about my edits on the Mannerheim page. Many thanks! I stumbled on that page while surfing here, saw room for improvement and just started improving. I would have registered sooner or later, and your message made me register sooner.

My edits are one result of my research on the Finnish leadership during the WWII, both civilian and military. Time permitting, I will edit the Mannerheim page more and then go on to write about the other Finnish personalities of the time.

Mikko H.

Finnish articles

Hey, I'd be happy to work with you on any articles you think need rewording/cleanup. Just send me a pointer when you have something for me to start on. --Improv 17:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Continuation war & Suur-Suomi

Hello.

You commented about my change on the article continuation war about a sentence about Suur-Suomi or Greater Finland. IMHO it is a valid addition (although someone made the sentence a bit better already). As you might know, Suur-Suomi-ideology was very dominant especially in the finnish academic world. See for example Akateeminen Karjalaseura. Actually I find it too simplifying to say that the finnish aim to expand to the east was just to guarantee the survival of the brethren populations in East Karelia as clearly the goals were also to expulse the slavic population and through education assimilate Karelians to the Finnish population (incidentally, the finnish communists who administered the Soviet Republic of Karelia during the 1920's-1930's period of Korennitsyja tried to do exactly the same within the Soviet Union!). To leave the thought about Suur-Suomi means that the reader is unable to understand that the annexation of East Karelia was also an ideological project. And as Wikipedia is not paper, I can't see why it couldn't be mentioned.

Also, it seems to me that " by extending the territory further east, to guarantee the survival of the Finnic brethren in East-Karelia" somehow implies to the reader that these "brethrens" were in grave danger and that it was only logical that Finland rushed to save them. It also implies that Finland wasn't interested about the land itself, but just the safety of these related populations.

As for the bias against right wing ideologies - it was of course in no way purposeful, but as far as I know, it is factually true, that people who envisioned joining the brethren tribes to the Finnish population were politically in right. Is it biased to state it?

Sorry for possibly garbled english, -Lokakyy 12:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

Thank you for your response!

To start with the language issue: All of us with other mothertounges than English do this a lot (i.e. garble the language, so that the natives often do not understand what we intend to express). There are many aspects of Wikipedia that might be questioned and criticized, but one of the doubtless advantages is that hard-to-parse language often is spotted also by people who would never edits the facts of an article. That way we get feedback and help with language polishing at the same time (although sometimes it last months or more).

Then there is the issues on style; and policies common for this English language Wikipedia:

• Terms in other languages than English do not belong in the text — unless they are at least equally well known to the average English reader as the English translation of that term. Hence Suur-Suomi do not belong in the article on the Continuation War, but Greater Finland is perfectly alright. ...and of course there ought to be a redirect from Suur-Suomi to Greater Finland.

I think your arguments and reasoning are perfectly clear and valid. The only problem I have with them (beside the Finnish term) is that I believe you tried to load even more of message into an already overloaded sentence (in an already overloaded article). Another problem is that one doesn't know exactly where to stuff this line of thoughts. An article on Greater Finland? The articles on AKS, IKL, Ryti, Witting or Tanner?

User:Whiskey has this autumn put a lot of energy into this article, and I can't help the impression that his conviction is somewhat contrary to yours. Where I've perceived a policy in leading circles (Ryti and probably some others) stressing the importance of improved relations with Berlin and avoiding too much of concilliance towards Moscow and Stockholm already from February 1940, that however only slowly was spread in wider circles, User:Whiskey seems rather to be of the opinion that Ryti and Witting unintentionally made what in retrospect turned out to be The Right Thing To Do (i.e. the re-connection to Germany). Wikipedia is hardly served by anyone of us trying to put the stamp of either driftwood theory or revanchist theory on the articles on Finland's history. Instead, the ideal I hope we all strive to reach is wordings somewhere along the lines of:

Many historians, like Korhonen, who belong to the X-school, point out that...

They are countered by historians, like Y and Z belonging to the T-school, who argue that...

My impression — as a non-Finn unable to read Finnish debates — is that you've discussed these issues so very much in Finland, that for you who are aware of the context of your domestic debate, nuances and choises to mention this or that carry meanings that foreigners impossibly can perceive unless we descend into lengthy explanations every now and then. And these lengthy explanations have for reasons of readability to be introduced by briefer summaries (that, again, sensitive Finns easily object to, if they forget that the intended reader doesn't have any previous understanding of the issue).

In short, and with regard to Wiki is not paper, I believe the Finnish proverb is Ei näe metsää puilta. :-))

Best regards!

--Ruhrjung 15:47, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your comment, and see my talk page for more. Kosebamse 14:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

country infoboxes

Thanks for your support!  —Davenbelle 15:52, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Northern Europe

If you're still online, please take a look at my response at Talk:Northern Europe. Ronline 22:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 00:42, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Thanks for your support. Organizing the vote was rather stressful, and now i am facing the fallout of unhappy voters (i.e. those who didn't get their view). Anyway, overall I think it worked out not too bad. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 10:30, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Bring back quickpolls

I think it's time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you? --Ryan! | Talk 05:10, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject: Rivers

I fixed my omission. It's been a confusing Friday for me. -- llywrch 23:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Landsmann :-) Could you state what you want at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Naming methods . I hope it is going to a compromise, on one hand only allowing uppercase (to reduce number of variants) on the other not inforcing X River if X is not ambiguas (I never know how to write this word :-) ). Tobias Conradi 23:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Old, old Hanko edit

Almost two years ago, you made an odd edit on the Hanko, Finland page. If I didn't know better, I'd think it was vandalism. As it is, do you remember what you meant to say by "the short Russo-Finnish front queer over the base of the peninsula..."? I've no idea what was meant by this, so I can't make a worthwhile edit myself on it. Ich glaube, daß Ihr Englisch besser als mein Deutsch ist, aber wenn Sie nur das deutsche Wort Ihnen erinnern können, vielleicht kann ich übersetzen helfen. -- John Owens (talk) 01:37, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

Well... the Hanko peninsula was, as a part of the Moscow Peace Treaty "leased" by the Soviet Union (I don't remember right now, but on 50 years, I guess) from March 1940, or so approximately. There was a Swedish volunteer troop fighting on the Finnish side in the Continuation War (and hence, indirectly on the German side of the Great Patriotic War/Hitler's Crusade against Bolshevism). This corps was not particularly large. But it was for many reasons suitable to let this volunteer corps keep the watch along the border between the Soviet base and Mainland Finland, until it was evacuated on December 2. The corps was then disbanded, many of its members returned to Sweden when it had turned out that the Crusade wasn't joined by other Western powers (read: Great Britain), and that further more the Wehrmacht obviously had been too optimistic with regard to her capacity for Blitzkrieg against Russia. Others of the volunteers were dispersed among the Swedish language units of Finland's army.

Among the reasons why this was a suitable task was that the countryside around the Hanko peninsula is old Swedish-speaking territory of Finland, and that it's much closer to Sweden than the Karelian frontiers.

I think I recently had seen a map over the peninsula when I wrote the addition in question, but I don't remember anything of that right now. The peninsula is slender, so it makes sense to me. :-)

Any clearer?
--Ruhrjung 02:00, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

The neck of the peninsula is rather clearly shown at http://www.histdoc.net/history/hanko.html — there you can also see the border in question.
--Ruhrjung 02:06, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's just that the phrase "front queer over" makes no sense there in English, and sounds almost like your average kiddie vandalism. That's why I was suggesting maybe you could tell me what you meant to say in German, and whatever English translation is used, I could make sure it didn't seem similarly odd.

Just to be clear, while "queer" can mean "komisch, seltsam", these days the most common use (at least in the USA, and at least to some degree in other English-speaking lands) is for "schwul, Schwule, Tunte". It certainly seems dissonant in that sentence. -- John Owens (talk) 02:50, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

It certainly does! I guess I ought to have written across. --Ruhrjung 02:57, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've put "across" in there now, and it seems to make much more sense now. Thanks for the help. :) -- John Owens (talk) 03:14, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

My pleasure! --Ruhrjung 20:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Appeasement

OK, I was thinking at the time that "Beschwichtigung" or "Beschwichtigungspolitik" might be the better term for "appeasement" than "Erfüllungspolitik", but I thought it better to link to an article that does exist, or else not include a de: link at all. And yes, I noticed that Erfüllungspolitik, the article, refers to almost the opposite of what the English article describes. ;) So, I guess basically it comes down to a question of, do we want to include links to non-existent articles? Umm, scratch that, I guess I hadn't expected that an article would exist with such a blatantly English name there, but I guess it does, and has for a while. Still, I'd be tempted to move Appeasement to Beschwichtigung or Beschwichtigungspolitik, but I'll probably settle for redirecting those two to "Appeasement". --John Owens (talk) 01:32, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Continuation war

Hi there, you have reverted my addition on Continuation War (specifically "Aims of war"). My intention is to present alternative view points (WP is neutral, ie including multiple points of view). I really do think that the current "aims of war" section presents the invasion and reparations in only one single light: ie defencive and almost positive. Perhaps my work needed rewording, but I don't think it should have been reverted. Please discuss before reverting. Also, there is no way that yours was a minor edit, please do not tick the box in these circumstances. Please discuss on the talk page. 194.106.59.2 00:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my revert of your edits was nothing I went into details to discuss. I think, to be honest, that you editing without logging in strongly contributed to my undifferentiated treatment of your edits. This is maybe no ideal situation, but it's nevertheless not an uncommon fault also among more experienced Wikipedians than I am. Some of your edits[17] were in my judgement clearly sub-standard, particularly the first parenthesis, and I may also have been in somewhat of a hurry. This article has been the target of several attempts to get it into line with Soviet propaganda. My chief impression of your edit was that you were yet another in the line of people who take 50 years old Soviet propaganda as facts, although without referring to the original source. I may be wrong, but qualified people I trust have founded my impression that a partial and temporary opening of Soviet archives has diminished the reasons to treat Soviet propaganda as anything else than just propaganda.

You removed the most of the following:

The Soviet Union of the 1930s was however a militarily weak power, and it can be argued that all of her policies up to the Continuation War are best explained as defensive measures (however by offensive means): the sharing of Poland with Nazi Germany, the annexation of the Baltic states and the attempted invasion of Finland in the Winter War can all be seen as elements in the construction of a security zone between the perceived threat from the capitalist powers of Western Europe and the Communist Soviet Union – similar to the post-war establishment of Soviet satellite states in the Warsaw Pact countries and the Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance concluded with post-war Finland.

And inserted:

However given the land gain to Russia (and loss from Finland), resources captured and reparations demanded by Russia in exchange for continued Finnish existance: the aim of the war from the Russian perspective could be interpreted simply as a more powerful nation expanding and extending its borders and resources in a manner akin to Nazi Germany around the same time - perhaps having observed the lack of recriminations against the latter by other countries.

Also this I considered sub-standard. One should not, and can not, base the assumption of what a country aimed at with a war on the actual outcome of the war. This is a logical fallacy.

In any case, I'm happy you raised the question. Now I hope you'll find a good handle, or in case you don't have a sensitive position and don't fear future presumptive employers' investigations, you may even want to use your RL name here — and log in!

:-)

Kind regards!

--Ruhrjung 06:46, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Zürich to Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Being a contributor to the previous vote you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move in the new vote on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 09:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Audio template

Are you sure you clicked the right link? The audio template has been up and running for quite a while now in many articles and I've heard about this kind of problem before.

Could you try listening to this file to see if it works? If not, there might be something up with your browser. listen^ⓘ Peter Isotalo 18:08, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am sure!

I've listened to most of your audio files (and your wife's :-) and if there has been problems with any other, the number of these have been very few, say 3-4-5.

I guess the 'ö' is a problem.

--Ruhrjung 18:11, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

heh! Karin's "just a girlfriend". She has ambitions of being more than that, so I'll be sure to pass the comment on. ^_^

The odd thing is that the file does exist on Commons and linking to the file image doesn't seem to be a problem. Does this link work for you? If not, could you make a post about this at Template talk:Audio and give some details about the problem as well as which browser you're using and such? Peter Isotalo 19:05, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

That link works, which was why I made the change in the first place. In your shoes, I would try with a copy without the 'ö'.

As long as presumtive wifes don't hope that one's personality would change just for getting legally involved, longtime companions are a good thing. A problem is that also if one informs them, and believes the matter to have been discussed and cleared, in retrospect it might too often turn out that they had nurished secret hopes of being one's savior from personality traits one didn't wish to be saved from in the first place... ;->

--Ruhrjung 12:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Åland

What lies behind the insistence upon calling Åland "the Åland Islands" (in English) and "landskapet Åland" (in Swedish?). The former is surely just a geographical expansion of the name (like calling Shetland "the Shetland Islands"), the latter a reference to the administrative entity (as in "Strathclyde Region" for Strathclyde). If plain Ahvenanmaa is good enough for Finnish, why not just Åland for Swedish/English? (Despite the rather curious use elsewhere in en.wikipedia of cod-Latin names for Swedish-speaking counties, regions, etc., English normally uses the Swedish-language forms tels quels.) I sense a possible hidden agenda here, so -- not wishing to get involved in an "editing war" -- I will restrict myself for the present to grammatically correcting "The Åland Islands consists" to "The Åland Islands consist"... -- Picapica 19:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't comment on the choice of Smalandia, Tavastia etc. I try to hold on to consistency, but am in no way fanatic about such things.

With regard to Lake Saimaa, Sestra River, Åland Islands I guess it's primarily an English language habit to define a concept (particularly the first time it's used). In English, people can also be called Aland and Aaland and for many readers, it might seem natural to wikipedia:state the obvious. I returned to the longer denomination mostly out of old habit. I have read a set of books where the Åland Island have figured, chiefly on political and military history, but I've no personal connection to the islands, and have as far as I remember never been on the Åland side, but a few times visited the family of a friend of mine in the Turunmaan saaristo. I live with the perception that in (serious/elevated) English style, one prefers to write Åland Islands for the islands as collective.

I'm sure there are half-a-dozen other possible explanations too. Some of them tangential to nationalist sentiments, etc, etc.

--Ruhrjung 12:30, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ruhrjung: sorry if I seemed to impute to you the (to my mind) absurdities of Smalandia, Tavastia etc.! I persist in fearing that "outsiders" who dare to attempt to define terms in inter-national matters like the question of Åland are treading on eggshells (hence my worries)... See Onko Ahvenanmaa lääni? / Är Åland ett län?. -- Picapica 22:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are many absurdities in life. Tavastia versus Häme is one of them were I can see some merits in using latinized names also if they could be argued to be (at least somewhat) lesser known in English, due to the English speakers' tendency not to differentiate between 'ä' and 'a'. The same goes for Småland, but as I wrote, I'm no fanatic.

From the link you provided, I do particularly note the wording of the last paragraph (in Swedish):

Till den del Åland exempelvis skall föras fram i internationella sammanhang, såsom på kartor samt i officiell statistik och andra dokument, kunde man förslagsvis benämna Åland för rätt och slätt "Det självstyrda Åland" ("The Autonomous Åland Islands"), utan att därvid ange vare sig län eller landskap.

Ruhrjung 15:56, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Phones and phonemes

Hey, I thought I'd post this here since the mediation is getting kinda crowded by now. You objected to the use of /ɧ/ as a phoneme since the phone [ɧ] is not quite properly researched yet and has many articulatory places which varies according to both geography and social context.

However this doesn't apply to the phoneme /ɧ/, which is used in all phonologies of Swedish, since it's not a question of realization of a sound, but of phonology. No phonologies of Swedish use */ʃ/ since it's really not a native sound in Swedish and only occurs in som varieties and in certain social contexts. If you look at the comments I added in the latest edit at Swedish phonology, you'll see that I've mentioned that it is occasionally realized as [ʃ]. That a German-Swedish dictionary uses ʃ is to make the comprehension of the sound more easy for speakers of German, who would be unfamiliar with the distinction that native Swedes make.

A phonology of a language is also really not intended to be a pronunciation guide, but a linguistic survey of the sounds of a language as it is spoken natively. I hope I've cleared up any misunderstandings we might have. Peter Isotalo 19:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I do not exactly know what to answer.

In my experience, the phonemical sound is mostly mentioned as the "/sje/"-sound and not with any IPA (phonetic symbol). And I would guess that if this is my experience, then it is most probably the experience of most other students of Swedish (including at least some of them who are linguists too).

The relationship to other Germanic languages (German, English and ...also Norwegian?) must be important not to obscure.

I would have more understanding for using the h-like symbol if there in fact were minical pairs in Swedish illustrating a opposition /ɧ/ versus /ʃ/, but this doesn't seem to be a feature of the Swedish phonetic.

All in all, I think you can see this as a parallell to the Wikipedia custom to use names most common to the English speakers.

Finally, phonology and phonetics are not quite as separable for second language learners as one might think. Phonetics comes first and last. Phonology is only the organisation of understanding and proficiency that we strive for.

Thank you for raising this issue. I'm sorry not to have been able to give you a more affirmative answer. I will be busy working for the next 10-12 days, and don't expect to have much access to computers (or spare time).

--Ruhrjung 12:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

With the exception of Leinonen's thesis, which is specifically about Finland-Swedish and uses more than one term (/sje/, sje, /ʃ/), all phonologies of Swedish I've managed to get my hands on seem to use /ɧ/ to describe the phoneme. The realizations are a completely different matter, and that you can't find minimal pairs to differentiate /ɧ/ from */ʃ/ is simply because [ʃ] is a realization of /ɧ/ and not a seperate phoneme. The only other phoneme that is fairly similary is /ɕ/. Other than that the only other fricatives are /f/, /v/, /s/, /h/ and in some varieties /r/, /j/ (particularly in Central Swedish).

You're right about phonetics and phonology not being all that easy to seperate for non-native speakers, but that doesn't change the fact that a phoneme is supposed to describe the smallest building block of a language that actually has lexical meaning and not how the sound is produced. That's what phonetics is about and allows for a lot more detail.

Just as an example I'll use the word kart, "unripe fruit".

• Phonemical transcription: /kɑrt/
• Phonetical transcription: [kʰɑʈ] (in Cenral Swedish)

The phonemical transcription considers [ʈ] to be a realization of the two phonemes /rt/ and the aspirated /k/, [kʰ], is noted only in the phonetical transcription since aspiration doesn't serve a lexical function in Swedish (unlike, for example, Korean, Quechua or most dialects of Chinese).

That Swedish is related to certain languages doesn't mean that the sounds used in Swedish exist in closely related languages. [ɕ], for example, exists in both Japanese and Chinese, but not in German ([ç] is similar but not identical). There are more examples among the vowels, like /ʉ̟ː/ which has great similarities to /ʉː/ in Dutch and Norweigan, but still is unique due to its being a lot more advance (frontal).

Saying that a phonology of one language largely resembles that of a second, related language doesn't mean that generalizations should go so far as to actually obscure the differences that do exist. That would be sacrificing accuracy in detail to make it seem as if the language is less unique in its sound set. It's a bit like saying that the German /ç/ should be replaced by a /ʃ/ in the appropriate wikipedia article just to make it more recognizable to native speakers of English. Peter Isotalo 14:51, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Another thing, by the way. The use of /sje/ is really not ideal in any situation. The slashes are the standard way of writing phonemical transcriptions. That means that everything written within the two slashes should be considered seperate phonemes. In this case /sje/ is just plain misleading, since it is in fact just one single phoneme and not an assimilation of /s/, /j/ and /e/. I don't really know why it has been used in this way by Leinonen (he's the only one I've seen use it that way so far), but it seems to me that his use has been intended to focus on the Finland-Swedish realizations and not Swedish in general. Peter Isotalo 22:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite convinced we shouldn't make too much out of one single author's work. Leinonen is usable as a reference for what he writes about, including the perception of Finland-Swedish sje-sounds and tje-sounds. That's it. It's not very useful to dissect his usage of terminology exegetically.

Here we write for a reader that doesn't read Swedish and is not expected to be knowledgable of particularly Swedish phonology or phonetics. However, knowledge of English and general phonology and phonetics can be assumed (to some degree). Hence there are strong reasons to use symbols that the reader can relate to.

The Swedish sje-sound is not very native to the language. Instead it is a phenomenon that can be traced back to the mid-17th century, when Low German influences were at a maximum. There are in my opinion very strong reasons to illustrate the connection to the closely related Germanic languages. English and German (and Dutch) are larger and better known languages. Hence the symbols /ʃ/ and /ç/ are to be preferred for ɧ ~ ɕ.

We are in obvious agreement that differences between related languages shouldn't be obscured. Your example of /ç/ versus /ʃ/ in German is very illustrative. They are (in German) phonemically differentiating, hence it's necessary to use two different symbols for the phonemes. But just like differences shouldn't be obscured, neither should similarities.

I'm happy to register your agreement that / ʃ / and / ɧ / would indicate the very same phoneme.

Ruhrjung 15:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think I've adressed this in other discussions, bur for the sake of clarity I'll take it hare too. [ʃ] and [ɧ], do indicate the same phoneme, namely /ɧ/ (which is used in practically all Swedish phonologies I've been able to get my hands on). I must, however, point out that the realization [ʃ] seems to be quite rare. It's used in Finland-Swedish, but [ɕ] (or something inbetween) seems to be far more common. I can't recall hearing it in Stockholm or on TV or radio. It probably occurs, perhaps frequently in very recent English loanwords, but only one phonology acknowledges it properly, and that's Garlén in Svensk fonologi. Elert uses [ç], by the way, but if you read the fine print, he's actually using it to write ɕ] and he's the only I've seen do it so far.

As for the [ɧ] not being "native", this is just plain wrong. That a sound is relatively new (in this case at least a century or so) does not mean it's not native. Any sound used by a large proporition of native speakers of a language is native, and that's the only criteria needed for native status, not historical phonetics. If anything, [ɧ] seems to have lost the air "sloppiness" it used to have, and is getting more popular.

Each seperate language deserves to get the symbols that most closely fit the sounds of that particular language. [ʃ] and especially [ç] are quite rare sounds in Swedish. In, fact I don't think ever heard a native Swede use [ç] as an allophone of /ɧ/, though I wouldn't claim that it doesn't exist at all. The point of a phonology of a particular language is actually not to compare to other languages, but to describe the sounds as used by native speakers in that language. Comparative phonetics is certainly a very interesting field, but it's intended for scholarly papers and the like, not encyclopedias.

Peter Isotalo 00:07, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Your behavior and edits concerning articles relating to Swedish has resulted in a joint Request for Comments for users Johan Magnus, Ruhrjung and Tuomas. You're encouraged to respond at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johan Magnus, Ruhrjung, Tuomas. Peter Isotalo 20:27, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

A full week has now gone by since I filed the RfC. While Johan Magnus has made a sort of statement on the talk page, he has not submitted a proper response yet. You have so far not acknowledged that you've noticed the RfC at all, eventhough you have edited other articles. I would appreciate if you could submit a response. It's hard for outsiders to make comments when only one side has presented a statement.

Peter Isotalo 23:34, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

On a side note, could you check out this talk page at Swedish Wikipedia? I'd like you to comment it since I know the alias belongs to you. Preferably on this Wikipedia. Peter Isotalo 00:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bad letter a-ring.png

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Bad letter a-ring.png has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 00:19, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. It looks like you're not active anymore, but if you come back and are at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. I've marked you on this list as "inactve". Feel free to update this as well. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) July 3, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like to invite you personally to the Swedish Wikipedians's Notice Board, where you can raise various issues, etc. (It's all explained in the intro).

Fred-Chess 13:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And welcome back to Wikipedia! // Fred-Chess 13:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately, however, I'm not "back" at the Wikipedia. Only visiting back in Malmö and East-Scanian sv:Agusa for the weekend. :-)

I'm sorry to conclude that my interest to socialize with certain profilic Swedish Wikipedians is somewhat limited, so to say. ;-/

--Ruhrjung 21:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, Ruhrjung. I'm glad to see that your commitment to giving up on Wikipedia is letting up. I'm still not an active participant of the SWNB, though, and I certainly don't hold grudges as long as they're not needlessly rehashed.

Peter ^Isotalo 03:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Denmark page as living in or being associated with Denmark. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Danish Wikipedians for instructions.--Rmky87 17:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:NW Russia.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:NW Russia.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 03:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested

Some links nachschauen ?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Deutschland-Polska/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Koenigsberg/

Kind Regards to Germany

Sean

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [18]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Elena Lappin

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Elena Lappin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Elena Lappin. Versageek 19:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Markus Drake

The article Markus Drake has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long-term unreferenced biography with no indication that subject meets notability criteria.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllyD (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Sockpuppet" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sockpuppet. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Sockpuppet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Finnic peoples for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Finnic peoples is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnic peoples until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)