User talk:Silverhelm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Silverhelm, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask a question at the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome, and good luck!

Kirill Lokshin | Talk 22:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

I like the work you're doing on Canadian political party articles. Breaking them into sections make them easier to read. Keep up the good work, and welcome. Ground Zero 16:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! I've noticed that some of the articles need a bit more polish, but for now I'm concentrating on creating the sections; as you say, it improves the readability. I've also only edited the articles very lightly to insert the sections, but if people are happy with the new structure, then some more assertive editing will be needed to make the sections a little more self-contained. (Silverhelm 17:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC))
"more assertive editing" -- see Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Don't hold back. Ground Zero 17:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
It was really a reminder for myself! ;-) (Silverhelm 17:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Flag of Belarus

I've gone through this again to add a little more polish. As far as I'm able to, I've also double-checked the references to material on other websites, and have eliminated most of the red wikilinks. Re-reading this article so many times must now qualify me as an amateur expert on Belarusian flags! :-)
Silverhelm 04:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I seriously thank you for what you are doing. Here, take a Barnstar as a token of my appreciation. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to German Cabinet

I noticed that you made a lot of nomenclature changes in the articles related to the German cabinet but provide no reason or explanation for those changes. Can I ask why you found them necessary? sebmol 07:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I should've added a note on this, perhaps. I changed the ministerial titles to more exactly reflect the formal titles in German (mainly "Federal Minister" for "Bundesminister"). Silverhelm 15:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I suppose it's a question of understanding. Does it make more sense to provide a close to literal translation or one that makes obvious sense to natively english-speaking readers. I was more surprised by the renaming of the "Ministry for Foreign Affairs" to "Foreign Office". It's true that it might be closer to the official name but it might now be less obvious what it means. It's also important to note that the "Auswärtige Amt" is often colloquially called the "Aussenministerium." Also, translating the German "Außenminister" as "Foreign Minister" is definitely not accurate because, without explicit context, it sounds like the minister is foreign which is most certainly not the case. sebmol 05:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I avoided using the phrase "literal translation", as a literal translation can easily be a bad translation. What I have tried to do, though, is to make the translations as close to the original as possible, without producing a result that is unnatural in English. I believe that Wikipedia articles should strive to be an authoritative reference; for example, someone interested in the British government might only want to know that the "foreign minister" is Jack Straw, but there will certainly be people interested to know that officially he is the "Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs". A parallel is, perhaps, people referring in English to "Holland" when they mean "the Netherlands".
Now, it seems for you that "Federal Foreign Minister" is an unnatural translation, but I have to disagree with you. If one were to have to refer to a "federal minister" who was "foreign", then the phrasing would be "foreign federal minister". Quite simply, the default meaning of "foreign minister" is a minister responsible for a country's relations with other countries; only in a very specific context could it be interpreted to mean a minister who was himself (or herself) foreign.
As to the basis of my translation, I used the minister's formal title of "Bundesminister des Auswärtigen". This doesn't translate easily into English, but it might indeed be most accurately translated as "Federal Minister of [or "for"] Foreign Affairs", so perhaps I should change the text accordingly. However, the only way to translate "Auswärtige Amt" correctly must be "Foreign Office"; the federal government itself uses this as its translation, by the way.
Cheers, Silverhelm 20:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Example of revised table format for "List of States in the Holy Roman Empire"

Coding:

{|border=1 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 
|-
!Name
!Type
!Circle
!Bench
!Formed
!Notes
|-
|[[Aachen]]
|style="background:#ff6633;"|Imperial City
|LR
|RH
|?
|Annexed to France in 1794(?)
|-
|[[Arenberg]]
|Duchy from 1644<br>''Originally a county;<br>then a princely county from 1576''
|ER
|PR
|12th c.
|
|-
|[[Bishopric of Augsburg|Augsburg]]
|style="background:#6699ff;"|Bishopric
|SW
|EC
|?
|Annexed to Bavaria in 1803
|-
|[[Augsburg]]
|style="background:#ff6633;"|Imperial City
|SW
|SW
|1276
|Annexed to Bavaria in 1806
|-
|[[Austria]]
|Archduchy from 1359 or 1453<br>''Originally a margraviate;<br>then a duchy from 1155''
|AU
|PR
|960
|
|-
|[[Baden]]
|style="background:#cccc33;"|Margraviate from 1112, and an electorate from 1803
|SW
|PR
|c.960
|Divided into Baden-Baden and Baden-Durlach, 1535-1771
|-
|[[Baden-Baden (state)|Baden-Baden]]
|Margraviate
|SW
|PR
|1535
|Inherited by the Baden-Durlach line in 1771
|-
|}

Table:

Name Type Circle Bench Formed Notes
Aachen Imperial City LR RH ? Annexed to France in 1794(?)
Arenberg Duchy from 1644
Originally a county;
then a princely county from 1576		 ER PR 12th c.
Augsburg Bishopric SW EC ? Annexed to Bavaria in 1803
Augsburg Imperial City SW SW 1276 Annexed to Bavaria in 1806
Austria Archduchy from 1359 or 1453
Originally a margraviate;
then a duchy from 1155		 AU PR 960
Baden Margraviate from 1112, and an electorate from 1803 SW PR c.960 Divided into Baden-Baden and Baden-Durlach, 1535-1771
Baden-Baden Margraviate SW PR 1535 Inherited by the Baden-Durlach line in 1771

[edit] Wow!

Thanks for saving me the hassle of reverting that odd little bit of spamming/vandalism/whatever on my talk page. I'm agog at the fact you did it within four minutes of it having been posted! What witchery or dark art is this?!
Cheers, Silverhelm 06:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. The trick is reading Special:Recentchanges. --fvw* 08:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Girl photos

Good idea of collecting a gallery of photos. Thanks! However, so as not to clutter the article, I moved them to a gallery, where you can add more pictures. See the Girl talk page. --Janke | Talk 11:26:26, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for contributing to Girl!

An Award
For your contributions to the CotW focusing on Girl in September, 2005, I, Mamawrites, award you, Silverhelm, this THANK YOU.

[edit] Availability/Price

Re Comparison of bitmap graphics editors, the column you've labelled price also includes information about whether the software can be freely redistributed (indicated by GNU icons) -- if we want to dedicate one column to price alone, then we might want to move the licensing information to another column. Ojw 10:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weißenburg in Bayern

hello there, terribly sorry to disturb you with this topic, but there is a new vote Talk:Weissenburg in Bayern on finally renaming it to Weißenburg in Bayern and since you have shown previous interested, I just thought I'd let you know what is going on... with kind regards. Gryffindor 22:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Can't believe that this should even need a vote, but I shall do my duty! Silverhelm 06:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Good work

I saw your copy edits to California counties. Good work, thanks for doing it. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, very kind of you. There's plenty more that needs doing, though!! Cheers, Silverhelm 03:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

Hey thanks for the map of Panama, I love it! iamorlando 12:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Well, the main problem why most Albanian users oppose that is because they are afraid of the world's reaction. I mean, noting that it's a part of Serbia is oppenly offendive. Additionally, the largest part of Kosovo's history is Serbian - another thing offensive to the Albanians. So, you see, that's why it's so fishy. While some Serbian pushers write this to prove some historical Serb legacy over Kosovo, most Albanians are infuriated/scared by the fact that people (reading this wiki) might believe that. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Not scared HRE, tired of Serbian propaganda. That is the term. Silverhelm, thanks for your comments, but no need to be so touchy. The topic is touchy itself. Should you not like it, no need to call people "children" because they have things they don't agree with. Good luck with your Holy Roman Empire (HRE, hmmm?!) work instead. Ilir pz 23:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Although I can understand the thought process behind it, the conclusion is flawed. Stating that Kosovo was until recently de facto part of Serbia, and from the Serbian point of view is still so de jure, should hardly be a cause for controversy. To state the assertion of Serbian sovereignty is not to confirm its validity, it merely helps to explain the current situation; by avoiding mentioning Serbia at all in the introductory text, one is left to wonder why the independence movement exists, or for that matter, the protectorate! It would be just as ridiculous to have the article pretending that the province was a "normal" part of Serbia, without referencing the international protectorate or the disputed sovereignty.
An encyclopedia's duty is to report all relevant facts in their due proportion. Obviously in the case of past history there is an inevitable degree of interpretation required, as there is with all history. If there are two main "schools" of interpretation, then either one should be taken as the editorial line with the other stated as an opposing interpretation, or both should be presented equally. In that fashion neither viewpoint is ignored, and the reader is free to see both sides of an argument.
The edit war reflects a needless defensiveness. Stating that the area was part of the Serbian realm during part of the Middle Ages, as well as during periods of the 20th century, is surely an undisputed fact. I do not know enough of the area's history to know if it has also in the past been part of an Albanian state, but clearly if it has been then the article should also reflect this. Stating either of these says nothing about the "rightness" of either past or present sovereignty, just like stating that Poland has twice been partitioned by its neighbours does not invalidate its legitimacy as a state, or that stating that Brittany was once independent does not make it not be a part of modern France.
As I stated in my original comments, silly arguing about any of this will not bring anyone back from the dead, or create a sense of safety for anyone, whether Kosovar Albanian or Serb, and in no way represents an editorial line that Kosovo "should" be part of Serbia or "should" be independent.
If Kosovo becomes an independent state it will not be because of the actions of people squabbling on a website over whether or not the region was part of Serbia in such-and-such a century long before any of us were born, and if it is confirmed as an integral or autonomous part of Serbia it will not be because of that squabbling. The present is not the past, and Wikipedia is not the real world!
Silverhelm 16:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Deutsches Reich

Hi Silverhelm!

And hi to you! I have responded to each of your points one by one.

I did some additions and corrections to Deutsches Reich. Today I found your old version again.

First: Weimarer Republik has nothing to do with Deutsches Reich.

You are incorrect regarding the Weimar Republic. Despite the massive constitutional changes that occurred in 1918 and 1919, the name of the German state continued to be "Deutsches Reich". But don't just take my word for it, here are some examples of the term in official use:

Das Deutsche Reich ist eine Republik.
[From the Weimar constitution, article 1]

Das Deutsche Reich und die Russische Sozialistische Föderative Sowjetrepublik [..]
[From the Treaty of Rapallo (1922)]

Here's some pictures of stamps from the Weimar period, all clearly marked "Deutsches Reich":
http://www.mm-web.de/aldenhoven/Bilder/0983.jpg
You can see more stamps with the date clearly shown here:
http://www.h-u-m-rueegg.li/marken-de2.htm
And here's a photo of a coin from 1929:
http://www.auction-bergmann.de/ger/detail.asp?searchfield=&nachverkauf=False&searchstring=&nextrec=0&T1_ID=73&T2_ID=7300&T3_ID=168980
I hope that seems conclusive!

Second: Grossdeutsches Reich was founded to my knowledge after Hitler marched in Vienna (Oesterreich) and proclaimed the "...den Anschluss meiner Heimat in das Deutsche Reich!" (Translation would be "the joint of my homeland to the Deutsches Reich.)

I don't dispute the translation, but he clearly says Deutsche Reich, not Großdeutsche Reich!
Although the term "Großdeutsches Reich" was being used from the time of the Anschluß, I do not believe that it was "officially" used as the formal name of the state until either 1942 or 1943. For example, stamps used the phrase "Deutsches Reich" until 1943. I have seen "Großdeutsches Reich" used in books before then, but I have not seen it in formal usage, such as official documents. Possibly the article should be reworded slightly to reflect the "semi-official" use until then?
The German-language Wikipedia article "Großdeutsches Reich" also has this to say:

Durch Erlass des Reichsministers und Chefs der Reichskanzlei vom 26. Juni 1943 - RK 7669 E - trug das Deutsche Reich hinfort auch offiziell nach außen den Namen Großdeutsches Reich.

Here's my translation into English:

Through a Decree of the Reichsministers and Heads of the Reichschancellery of June 26, 1943 (RK 7669 E), the German Reich thereafter also bore outwardly [?] the official name of the Greater German Reich.

I only know a very little German, and translated that with the help of Babel Fish and LEO, but it seems reasonably clear.
Of course, I accept that I may not be right. If so, I would be happy to be corrected!

Third: Common used 1., 2. and 3. Reich - why is this deleted?

I'm afraid that I don't understand this question?

A appreciate a discussion and look forward of receiving a response.

Thank you very much,

Not a problem!

Preusse

Interleaved responses by Silverhelm 05:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 1962 Acts of parliament

I'm wondering if all the public acts for 1962 are in the 11 & 12 session rather than the 10 & 11.. needs some investigation. Regards, Kurando | ^_^ 12:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's likely that most of the 1962 Acts were in 10 & 11.
If you think about it, the 11th year would have begun in Feb. 1962, so it would make sense for the 11 & 12 session to begin late in the year and hence have comparatively few bills gaining Assent before the end of the year. Indeed, it appears from the London Gazette that the last Public Acts to gain Assent in December were cc. 2-7. Also, I have the Road Traffic Act 1962 as 10 & 11 Eliz. 2 c. 59, which is suggestive.
Of course, the devil is in the details, so there may be a small number of other Acts currently listed under 10 & 11 that belong under the next session.
Mind you, I do have doubts similar to yours in relation to some of the other years. Geo. 3 in particular seems to be problematic.
Silverhelm 14:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC).
This site is invaluable : http://www.justcite.com/default.aspx the only drawback being the way you need to search using, for example, the format 1962 cap 12 for all years, you cannot searhc using the 10 Eliz c. 12 format. It does not answer our specific 1962 problem. Kurando | ^_^ 09:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of extinct states

I replied to you on Talk:List_of_extinct_states, and proposed a tabular format. Comments? Argyriou 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Former Countries

I would like to invite you to WikiProject Former countries - formerly known as WP Historical States. The objective of this project is to improve the content and accessibility of articles on former countries. A taskforce for the states of the Holy Roman Empire has also been started and the child project on Prussia has also been revived. - 52 Pickup 13:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Home Rule Act

Thanks for the answer - I had pretty much forgotten the question! Obviously there were a few complications there that I wasn't aware of, even in your simplified version. All the best, Palmiro | Talk 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swabian Circle Map

Hello there! Your maps http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Swabian_Circle-2005-10-15-de.png and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Imperial_Circles-2005-10-15-de.png are partially not correct. The Swabian circle (Schwäbischer Reichskreis) included Grafschaft Hohenems and Reichshof Lustenau. In your maps, they are part of the Austrian circle (Österreichischer Reichskreis). Could you please change that? If you can't locate these territories on the maps, please contact me on my userpage! thanks in advance! de:Benutzer:Hagenk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.232.249.178 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Integrity check

This is a great idea, and could easily be added to the lists, I also wonder if the toc could take this format but I appreciate that might be asking too much.

An interesting idea about the TOC. Perhaps we can come back to it once the dust has settled from all the building work! Silverhelm 20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Most of the Acts of Great Britain and England (up to 1793) are listed by the year the session of parliament began rather than the year when given royal assent. Kurando | ^_^ 12:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens when I repeat the exercise for the Parliament of Great Britain! Incidentally, the Sale of Goods Act 1893 actually received Assent in 1894, so that will at least need a footnote somewhere. Silverhelm 20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC).



Dear Mr. Silverhelm!

I wanted to ask, if I can use your map of the imperial circles. I'm working on a project of the university Freiburg i. Br., that intends to create a non-commercial homepage about the Holy Roman Empire (www.altes-reich.de). Of course, I would mention the information of license in a link. Please contact me (DieWeigels@web.de) Thank you.

Viele Grüße S. Weigel

[edit] Dominion on Canada page (again)

I'd like this settled one way or another. Click here to comment. Thanks. --Soulscanner 10:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amerikka, Finland

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Amerikka, Finland, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)