User talk:Bytwerk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hitler revert

Hi Bytwerk, I often revert vandalism on Hitler, using rollback, which gives an automatic edit summary rather than one I write myself, explaining the reason for the edit. I don't know very much about Hitler, but when I see it's been edited, I check the last edit. If I reverted in error, I'm sorry. I saw something about Volkswagons, and assumed it was a joke. I haven't time to look into it now. If it was a serious edit, feel free to reinsert it. Cheers, AnnH (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bytwerk, regarding the VW addition I want to ask you whether you meant that Hitler was part of designing the car (as the current wording seems to suggest) or whether you only meant that Hitler pushed the production of the car (as I always thought)? Cheers, Str1977 10:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Str1977: The version I edited said Hitler had sketched the design of the VW in 1932, and cited a rather dubious source. There is good evidence that Hitler did more than simply push production, but I'm not sure of the accuracy of the 1932 bit. I'm looking into that, but in the meanwhile, the wording I use is accurate, I think. User:Bytwerk

[edit] Re: Thanks

It takes a bit time to find all the tricks, but one place to start is WP:MOS. I have a bunch of shortcuts for my own use on my user page; you may (or may not) find some of those useful.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see that while you're new here, you're not new to the subject matter in which we share a common interest. I've found your web site to be incredibly interesting and informative. One project of mine in which you may be interested is that I have scanned and transcribed the wartime propaganda booklet Was tue ich im Ernstfall? Eine Aufklärungsschrift für das Deutsche Volk. I find it fascinating and would like to translate to English, but that's rather daunting a task! Regards. — JonRoma 01:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hitler Historical Museum

Thanks for the help on this one. Posting the registration data/address was a great idea. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. What's the best way to keep from an edit war on this? Bytwerk 22:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It should have not gone so far, but in the midst of a lot of vandalizm today and another editwar about Hitler being Catholic or not Haham hanuka (talk · contribs) got away with 5 reverts - the 4th would have been enaugh to get him banned for 24 hours. More in a little bit ... Agathoclea 22:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I have now reported the violation of WP:3RR here [1]

an action anybody can take. Then administrators will take a look. Above all else whatever you do in such a situation never do more than 3 reverts in any 24 hours yourself. Agathoclea 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Just been reading your webpage - it looks like you can contribute a lot of info on the timeperiod in question. Agathoclea 17:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation at Hitler

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Hitler. I have disabled your editing permissions for 8 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. (Note that I am in no way endorse or distance myself from the changes made by you or the person who reported you, I merely apply Wikipedia's policy against revert warring.) Cheers, —Ruud 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure -- except I see only three edits on the page for the day in the log. Bytwerk 19:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[2] Was attributed to you, as that IP appears to be from the same source as your logged-in edits. Agathoclea 19:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for rvv on Adolf Hilter

Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism at Adolf Hitler. I was about to revert the nonsensical edit but you beat me.  :) I appreciate your help and commitment to removing vandalism. Cheers --Starionwolf 04:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler/Freemasonry

I suspect Specialthings of being the banned user Lightbringer, FWIW... --SarekOfVulcan 07:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link

Why do you keep removing this link, it is the second oldest link on this subject and by far the most informative

Because it is a weak link with some factual errors, and it has been discussed earlier on the talk page, where there was little enthusiasm for it. It is also anonymous, with no information given as to its owner. Bytwerk 12:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
see WP:RS Agathoclea 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Weak ? how, what factual errors? it is good enough for the BBC and the history channel to use as a source. If you want the owners name do a who is. Show me another site with more info on Hitler !

You got links listed that used that site as its source so you had better remove those link also.

A whois search for the site provides no information on the owner other than a name -- a good site provides information on its owner on the site itself. There are a variety of errors, both factual (e.g., the site suggests Hitler delivered a speech on 24 February 1945, when it was in fact read for him by Hermann Esser), and grammatical (too many to list) on the site. It links to a variety of dubious neo-Nazi sites. In short, as Agathoclea suggests above, it doesn't meet Wikipedia source standards. Bytwerk 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


That is Mickey mouse and you know it, I can go and find those kind of mistakes on every one of your links and 99% of the wikipedia links. Will you delete every link on wickiup that has grammatical mistakes ? or just my site?

AS for "dubious neo-Nazi sites. " I have one link and that is to Focal Point because I asked for permission to use his list of Hitler's medications, which by the way is verified by Louis Snyder's "Hitler's Third Reich"

As for not meeting Wikipedia source standards, I suggest it does not meet your standards because you somehow think this is a neo-nazi site because you failed to even adequately review the site, my personal info is on the site 2-3 times if you ever bothered to look, and never and I mean never failed to supply any one with sources that ever contacted me and this includes the BBC and the History channel and the other links in this section that contacted me.

When can I expected you to remove all the other links that do not meet the same standards are my site ?

First, the personal information is not easy to find. The obvious place to look for it would be the about page, or an FAQ.
Second, other dubious links include the Hitler Historical Museum and another one I can't find on the site at the moment (Adolf Hitler Research Society, if memory serves). I did not say that your site was neo-Nazi, rather that it linked to neo-Nazi sites, which hardly builds its credibility.
Third, a good site provides clear references to the source, without requiring the visitor to email the site.
Fourth, now you say it is your site. General Wikipedia practice is not to add your own site, but post something in the discussion page that asks others to consider doing it. For example, there is a link to a page on my site on German propaganda, which was there long before I got involved in Wikipedia.
Fifth, typos and other errors are significant. Of course no site is perfect, but yours has enough errors to reduce its value.
Finally, I'd be happy if the links you mention went -- but they are the result of controversies about Hitler and religion. Enough people thought they should be there after I tried removing them to put them back. But you're welcome to try removing them and see what happens. Bytwerk 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


"First, the personal information is not easy to find. The obvious place to look for it would be the about page, or an FAQ."

where does it state that in Wikipedia rules about external links?

Second, other dubious links include the Hitler Historical Museum and another one I can't find on the site at the moment (Adolf Hitler Research Society, if memory serves). I did not say that your site was neo-Nazi, rather that it linked to neo-Nazi sites, which hardly builds its credibility.

Hitler Museum is not a neo nazi site, and even if it were there are no Wikipedia rules about who to link to. Maybe you should email Wikipedia & www.remember.org an tell them not to link to it either as they will lose their credibility

"Third, a good site provides clear references to the source, without requiring the visitor to email the site."

Well the link you added [Professor Gerhard Rempels] violates the very things you accused me of, no orginal material and it does not provide clear references to all his lectures, my site has a better reference average than his site, and Rempels has a good site.


"Fourth, now you say it is your site. General Wikipedia practice is not to add your own site, but post something in the discussion page that asks others to consider doing it. For example, there is a link to a page on my site on German propaganda, which was there long before I got involved in Wikipedia."

I re-added it, I never added it in the first place, check the ips. I might have added your site once along with Axis bio research, those are the only sites I can ever remenber adding to wikipedia


"Fifth, typos and other errors are significant. Of course no site is perfect, but yours has enough errors to reduce its value."

Really, So you have checked all 110 megs of info on my site ? So tell me what is the ratio of errors, what is wikiepedias rules about errors, what is the acceptable error rate for wikipedia. Tell me something if I use a source and he has errors am I supposed to correct his work ? or use it in its original form ?

"Finally, I'd be happy if the links you mention went -- but they are the result of controversies about Hitler and religion."

Guess who they used are references :)

"Enough people thought they should be there after I tried removing them to put them back. But you're welcome to try removing them and see what happens."

I have no desire to remove any links, but you seem to enjoy removing mine, like the Mein Kampf German link. This has been a matter of principle to me, not links, because Wikipedia does not generate many hits in the first place. My site is not my career, rather a hobby I took up to spread a little info without political BS. The info is there, all 110 megs of it, and if you say it is no valuable, then that is your opinion. In the end it is the peoples decision not yours or mine.

If you are trying to make the Internet a perfect place for perfect people then you will fail, but if you did happen to succeed it would ruin what the interent for everyone

You have a G-day

The HHM is about as close to a Neo-Nazi site as one can get without self-applying the label. Remember.org was actually distressed to learn they had so many links to the site. Most of them have been removed, and they are working on getting rid of the rest. The other links you mentioned, which I didn't think were very good, have been removed by someone else. We'll see if they stay removed. Your site is not clear as to who you are. I fact, I did a little backchecking, and find that you added your name only recently to the about page. The cached version, last I checked, didn't have your name. And simply adding a name doesn't help much. The errors are significant, and I've come across a number of them. One more as an example. On the audio section, you have "Hitler's last speech" from April 1945. That's actually the conclusion to his 30 January 1945 speech. Rempel happens to be what Wikipedia (and scholars) consider a reputable source, having published significant work on the subject. He has credibility on the subject, There is little on your site to establish your credibility as a source on the subject. Consider what the Wikipedia policies say about sources:
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."
The point is not that your site is a bad one, but as you say, it is a hobby. You don't have the credibility on the subject to make your site appropriate. Bytwerk 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mein Kampf

It's chapter five not three - a slip up on my part. The site was just the first one that appears when you google Mein Kampf. Paul B 09:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for excellent work on Adolf Hitler

Providing sources for Hitler's religious beliefs from the near-impeccable source Ian Kershaw was great work. Andries 16:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I see you removed my edit to the 1922 newspaper article on Hitler. Would you mind if I reposted it, at least temporarily? It's been under discussion on the COI page, and I'd like the community to have the chance to have a look at it, and voice their collective thoughts.

The COI discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jesse_James

By the way, have you seen the full 1922 article?...it's pretty fascinating: http://firstmention.com/Documents/hitler%20bridgeport%20telegram%20CT%2011-13-1922.jpg

Thanks. Dsarokin 12:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been following the COI discussion, and think your edits fall under that category. You are clearly attempting to drive traffic to your site, which is problematic. Second, although the information is interesting, it is rather insignificant to Hitler's biography. The article is long enough already without adding every possible interesting detail. Third, it falls under the "No original research" rule.
If your site is good enough, and you have sufficient credibility, others will eventually decide the material should be in the article. Bytwerk 13:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


OK. Thanks for the quick reply. The wikipedia article is excellent, and goes over Hitler's early political development pretty much year by year...except for 1922. I do think the link I provided filled-in some interesting content for 1922, but of course, that's just one person's opinion. Cheers.Dsarokin 13:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AH Photograph

Many thanks for joining the dance around the AH rubble photo. Your efforts finished what I had started. Who knows how this 1933 photo made it to the U.S.; most likely in an overweight duffle bag with other “captured” or “liberated” stuff. Thanks again.--Gamahler 02:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calvin aerial image

Thanks for getting Phil De Haan's permission for the Calvin aerial image. That makes life a lot easier.

Once you upload an image on WP, it haunts you forever. :P EJDyksen (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Empire vs. Reich vote

Hello Bytwerk, I am R-41, I believe it is you who started the vote for the issue at hand, I would like to ask that you insure that enough time is given for people to read the pros and cons for both, as sometimes Wikipedia articles are altered with less than ten votes which I deem unacceptable. You asked for use of "empire" to describe reich in the Nazi era by writers, there are a number which you can see which I posted on the discussion page for Nazi Germany in the Empire vs. Reich vote section. One example of reich being translated as empire during the time period of the Nazi era was the first English translation of the book Das Dritten Reich written by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck who created the term Drittes Reich which is often called Third Reich today. But the first translated version in English which came out in 1934 was titled Germany's third empire. I agree that the article should advise those reading the article that reich is commonly left untranslated, but it seems useless to have a translation section which doesn't translate. Common usage of a word does not mean that it should be left untranslated when a translation is asked for, i.e. another German word in the Nazi era was Fuhrer which means "Leader" in English, but scholars usually do not translate it into "Leader" when casually mentioning it in a text, but when a definition is specifically asked for, "Leader" is given as the definition. Usually people avoid translating reich because they do not want to bother examining the usage of the word which has many meanings. But one must examine what Hitler and the Nazis were talking about when they used the word reich and what translations don't make sense. For instance, reich translated as "state" appears incorrect as in the context of Drittes Reich, that would translate as "third state", when a German state during the Weimar period. One idea which I previously promoted which I now view as flawed is the translation of reich into realm. Realm is only translatable in German as reich, but this does not take into account that the German translation of Sacrum Romanum Imperium into Heiliges Römisches Reich. In English, Sacrum Romanum Imperium is translated as Holy Roman Empire. So a translation of the German Heiliges Römisches Reich into Holy Roman Realm or Holy Roman State would be an incorrect translation. Of note is that the Nazis considered the Holy Roman Empire during Frederick the Great's rule as being the first "reich". With these considered, initial confusion declared by some writers over the definition of reich is clarified as other translations have been shown to be inaccurate depictions of what the term is representing and empire appears to be what the Nazis were referring to.--R-41 (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't true that the literal translation of "Reich" is "Empire." Language is messier than that. "Reich" is appropriately translated as "Empire" in the case of the First and Second Reiches, but that does not automatically mean the same is true for the Third. The examples you give all predate the Third Reich. von den Bruck's book was published in Germany in 1923, which gives it little significance for the use of the term after 1933. The Nazis themselves left "Reich" as "Reich" in their English translations. And, as I noted, current scholars almost universally (maybe universally — but certainly the overwhelming majority) keep it as Reich. I cited Evans, who notes a "literal" translation won't work. It would be easy to cite a lot more. The point is that you are insisting on a translation that nobody else but you seems to want to use. Wikipedia depends on sources. Rather than using irrelevant historical examples, I still ask you to find current scholars who might agree with you. And I'm not sure at all what you mean by saying "Of note is that the Nazis considered the Holy Roman Empire during Frederick the Great's rule as being the first "reich". " Could you provide a source for that? Bytwerk (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't say that reich is only translatable into empire, it does have many translations, but one translation, which is empire, appears to be what the Nazis meant when they spoke of Drittes Reich, as Third Realm and Third State do not make sense as realm is a monarchical term and that a German state existed for years, but empires rise and fall, so Third Empire for me appears to be a very accurate translation. I cannot find a specific reference for Frederick the Great's Holy Roman Empire as being the first Reich, but I have seen a Nazi propaganda poster which depicts Frederick the Great, Otto von Bismarck, and Adolf Hitler as the three major leaders of Germany. This appears to represent the leadership of the first, second, and third reichs. What are the sources you mentioned that were made by the Nazi regime that leave reich untranslated?--R-41 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If the Nazis meant "Reich" as "empire," they could have made that clear by translating it that way in English-language material they produced. They did not do so. They always used "Reich" in English translations. For one of many examples, see this page: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hitler1.htm. It is the official German government translation of a 1937 Hitler speech. Note that "Reich" is always "Reich." The Nazis did not consider Frederick the Great as having anything to do with the First Reich. They did view him as a great German. The problem is that your case depends on what appears to you to be "a very accurate translation." Wikipedia does not depend on what editors think, it depends on what they can support with reliable sources. You have yet to provide a single reliable source that supports your point. I and others have provided quite a few supporting the opposite. Bytwerk (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)