User talk:Schwartz und Weiss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Schwartz und Weiss and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Contents

[edit] Danzig upholding

Thanks for the help in upholding the Danzig referendum vote for nomenclature. Antman 23:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image tag

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use {{gfdl}} if you wish to release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use of someone else's work, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. (And if you know exactly what this means and are really tired of the constant reminders, please excuse me. They will stop once the tagging project is complete.) Thanks so much. Denni☯ 22:48, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

[edit] Image:East Prussia 1939.png

I would also like to know where the image Image:East Prussia 1939.png came from. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting Warschau/Warsaw

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of German/polish locations, I would invite you to vote on Warsaw/Vote to settle the multi-year dozends-of-pages dispute about the naming of Warschau/Warsaw and other locations.--Schlesier 08:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gdansk/Vote

Hello! I noticed that you have made a number of recent changes to articles citing Talk:Gdansk/Vote. I want to make you aware that not all of the recent changes have relevance to the vote. Key points of the Vote to me are:

  • For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
  • For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
  • For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

According to those clearly defined statements, only Gdańsk/Danzig is listed as a specific city whose name should change throughout an article depending on the time period in question. For all other topics, the relevant historical names should be listed in the intro. I have been changing many articles to follow this template: Frombork (-Polish, German: Frauenburg). Now, I happen to agree that it makes sense for Frombork to be referred to as Frauenburg through most of the article. However, doing so is not the current Wiki naming convention, nor is it supported directly by the Gdansk/Vote. Until a more thorough Vote on naming conventions is made, I feel it is better to discuss such changes on the Talk Page to achieve consensus before changing names abruptly, which frequently leads to revert wars. Tschüß! Olessi 17:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Babel

Could you consider adding this template to your userpage? It is very helpful in case translators are needed and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Comenius

At the time of Comenius the city of Elbing (Elbląg) belonged to Poland (which at the time had the official name of Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania). The province of Poland they were in had the official name of Royal Prussia. However, Royal Prussia was not a separete state, unlike the neighbouring Duchy of Prussia, which was dependent on Poland at the time being its fief but were a separate legal entity with its own separate ruler. Therefore writing that Elbing was in Prussia at the time is at minumum ambiguous and certainly strongly misleading, suggesting that the cities belonged to a state named Prussia. For most readers, the name Prussia suggests Kingdom of Prussia which was created in 1701 and came into possession of Elbing only during the Partitions of Poland in 1772. Comenius, on the other hand, lived between 1572 and 1670 when both cities belonged to Poland. Therefore the formula "Elbing (Elbląg) in Royal Prussia, a province of Poland" is not only completely true but conveys maximum amount of formation in a short text. The same argument goes for Danzig/Gdańsk, also mentioned in the article. Please do not change any of them as it would go against the established historical facts. Thank you. Friendly Neighbour 18:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Schwartz und Weiss, I noticed the incorrect statement sent to you 6 Sep 2006 about Comenius in Elbing etc. FN is trying to pass his opinion off as historical facts, while the actual historical facts are constantly removed from wikipedia articles by a group of people, sample [1] at Elbląg. Also compare the ENglish wikipedia version to the DE for some more accuracy.

The EN wikipedia is full of inaccuracies forced by same group, who is trying to change factual history to their version of extreme POV. Please take some time to look at the external links provided by me in the Comenius discussion and the 71.. user page. There you will also find Space Cadet posting as 'proof' google Comenius Elblag versions. When one bothers to look down the bottom, one can find out that they are wikipedia mirror sites, which SC even admits to.

I suggested several times to Friendly Neighbor, to read sources other than wikipedia entries for correct historical accounts but he instead used Space Cadets extreme POV. He re-inserted the statement From 1642-1648 he (Comenius) went to Elbing (Elbląg) in Polish Royal Prussia..

I will not get into further discussion, but I just wanted to point out this one incorrect wikipedia entry on Comenius in Elbing, which unfortunately is only one of thousands of deliberately incorrect wikipedia articles dealing with countries and people east of the Oder Neisse. Labbas 15 September 2006

I warn you that I suspect this is a sockpuppet account of User:71.137.207.147. In case you start to use it to wage a revert war, I'll have to ask the Wikipedia administrators to check whether both the accounts are operated from the same IP numbers. Please feel warned. Friendly Neighbour 18:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly Neighbor

Dear Schwartz und Weiss,

I can't know for sure whether you're innocent, but I will assume so because the user called paradoxically "Friendly neighbour" has been harrassing me, without any reason, as well. He has infiltrated our private discussion with another user and started to spam my talk page with absurd speculations about physics and with accusations about my hypothetical Asperger syndrome.

If you have more problems with that user, let me know, and we may try to look how to solve this problem.

Best wishes, Lubos --Lumidek 21:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jogaila

Sorry about my wording. It was careless on my part. However, a change like you made to Jogaila is something that would cause a lot of controversy and should be discussed on Talk:Jogaila first. This is a very sensitive article and I can see I wasn't sensitive to your feelings on it. Sorry. Leo1410 18:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I should really stop getting myself involved with this article. There are lots of editors with much stronger feelings about it than mine. I'm just a fan of that period of history. Leo1410 18:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alsace

Hey

I just wanna warn you that Alsace is french, and it used to be some days a part of the German Empire... but there is quite a while, and since the Napoléonic wars, Alsacians are more attracted to France than to Germany.

I'm an Alsacian and I'm living in this land for ever, all my ancestor since the year 1512 are alsacian... so I know more than you about Alsace's History. So trust me, Alsace righfuly belongs to France.

Thx Bye

Paris75000 22:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] August Cardinal Hlond

Hi Schwartz und Weiss,

I want to follow up with you about your edits to August Cardinal Hlond. The text in this article read:

"Most Rev. Maximilian Kaller is one of the bishops who were removed from their dioceses at this time, deported to West Germany, died and is now in process of beatification."

It was changed to:

"Most Rev. Maximilian Kaller is one of the bishops who was removed from his dioceses and deported to West Germany. Kaller is now in process of beatification."

You reverted this edit with the comment "Grammar and logic send their regards"

Before you go applying your own brand of grammar and sarcasm to other articles on wikipedia, I wanted to go over an aspect of English grammar with you:

Which of these sentences is generally correct:

- One of the boys is here

- One of the boys are here

It's the first sentence, because the subject is not "boys", but "one". "One takes a singular verb.

So when you write that: Kaller is one of the bishops who (was/were) removed, then you need to say that "who".

Let me know if you have any questions, but please don't change this text again.

Craig.borchardt 3 March 2007

"Dear "Expert",
The "boy" examples are simple sentences, while the "Hlond" line is a complex sentence consisting of an independent clause and a subordinate clause. I know it's all new to you and you must feel overwhelmed, but try this simple experiment: whenever you're not sure what the subject of the subordinate clause is, try inserting a numeral:

"Most Rev. Maximilian Kaller is one of the three bishops who was removed from his diocese and deported to West Germany.

No!

"Most Rev. Maximilian Kaller is one of the three bishops who were removed from their dioceses and deported to West Germany.

Yes!

Get it? Great! No? Too bad. Just don't change this text again.

Happy editing. Schwartz und Weiss 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's me again. My girlfriend [who is a high school teacher (social studies)] told me:
"Give that moron a simpler example like:
One of those who were deported.
versus
One of those who was(?) deported.
Otherwise he'll never get it and you will have another revert war."
Although I disagree with her on her choice of words describing your intelectual capacity, her syntax example seems impeccable to me. Schwartz und Weiss 22:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)"

Schwartz und Weiss,

Hello. I want you to know that I had a chance to look over the sentence again, and I can see that I was wrong. I made a mistake. These things happen. I clearly looked at the sentence too quickly. I also hope that none of my comments were seen as a personal attack. I apologize if they were.

Craig.borchardt 4 March 2007

[edit] Historical Eastern Germany

Perhaps you'd be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 05:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)