User talk:Sluzzelin/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

Ready to swab the decks!   
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew.
Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh!

- - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, Jehochman, and good luck with the mop and leaky pegleg! ---Sluzzelin talk 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democritus

I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I reverted your undo on the Democritus article. Two edits prior, the editor had added a nonsense/test edit to the article. The immediately previous editor reverted it, but then you undid him. I'm sure this was accidental but rather than give the appearance of starting a revert-war I just wanted to give you a heads-up. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T/C 16:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that, and thanks for the notice and correction. I'll try to be more careful. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about that

Not quite sure what happened, but now I know better than to refresh when I get an error message :S That's never happened to me before. Skittle 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Durrow

Hi, you switched the articles on the Book of Durrow after an anon switched the evangelist symbols for Mark and John. I have switched them back, as Durrow is atypical and uses a different tradition for assigning evangelist symbols. For Durrow, eagle for Mark and lion for John is correct. I have expanded the article somewhat to explain this. Dsmdgold 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Dsmdgold. Thank for pointing that out to me. Very interesting. I honestly thought it was a mix-up. Your new expansion adds value to the article for readers not familiar with the Book! ---Sluzzelin talk 17:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Hell Ship"?

This is a untrue and loaded term, it needs to be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also what comes to mind from the strafing the shipwreck survivors in the water, on purpose, isnt that a war crime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with your first point here, it seems that the term Hell Ship was reserved for Japanese POW ships. Googling "Arcona Hell Ship" only throws up this article and copies of this article. I'd suggest changing it to Prison ship and removing the Cap Arcona reference from the Hell Ship article as well. I don't really understand your second point though, sorry! LookingYourBest 09:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

From the Web site : http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035//arcona.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.182.240 (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Provisional toilets were installed on the deck of the Thielbek and embarkation started on the 20th April. The Swedish Red Cross were present and all concentration camp prisoners except the Russian prisoners received a food parcel which, with the combination of malnutrician and thirst, caused terrible suffering. The water supplied from the ship's tank was totally insufficient. Twenty to thirty prisoners died daily and were removed by lorry. All prisoners, except the political prisoners, remained one or two days on board before being transferred to the Cap Arcona by the Athen. The SS personnel were gradually reduced and replaced by 55 to 60 year old territorial army members and marines. There was straw on deck for the holds there being no beds. There were large stocks of provisions under tarpaulin on deck but distribution was disorganized. The sick and the Russian prisoners received little. The latrines were inadequate. Buckets were lowered into the holds and raised when full. The stench was terrible. Gastroenteritis raged.

... Gehrig was to escort the prisoners to their deaths aboard the Cap Arcona. He ordered captain Nobmann of the Athen to take 2,300 prisoners and 280 SS guards on board and to ferry them to the Cap Arcona. Captain Nobmann initially refused but obeyed when threatened with being shot following a drumhead court martial. The SS and Kapos drove the prisoners on board with yells and blows. They had to climb down rope ladders into the deep holds of the ship. In the haste many prisoners fell and were seriously injured. There was hardly room to move in the dark, cold and damp holds. There were no toilets or water. After some hours the fully laden ship left the harbour for the Cap Arcona anchored off Neustadt. Captain Bertram refused to take the prisoners on board even after the SS came aboard. The Athen remained off Neustadt overnight and returned to Lübeck next morning, the 21st April, the prisoners having been given nothing to eat or drink.

... On the 27th April the Athen arrived in Neustadt with 2,500 prisoners from Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp who were transferred to the Cap Arcona. For three days the Athen journeyed to and fro between Lübeck harbour and the Cap Arcona. There were finally 6,500 prisoners on board and 600 SS guards. There was hardly anything to eat or drink and prisoners continued to die. A launch brought drinking water and took the dead back to Neustadt daily. The Russians received the worst treatment being locked in the lowest hold without fresh air, light or food. The number of dead grew ever larger. The Athen made its last journey to the Cap Arcona on the 30th April but this time to take prisoners off as the Cap Arcona was so over crowded that even the SS could no longer endure the starvation, stench and dead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.182.240 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cap_Arcona"

Hello there, 86.64.182.240, and thank you for pointing out the discussion at talk:Cap Arcona. In response to the original poster's concerns, I cared neither about truth nor loadedness when I removed the wikilinked attribute "hell ship" from the article on Thielbek.
My own concerns with this metaphor are ambiguity and verifiability in reliable sources. Following common usage, "hell ships" linked to the article on a different category of ships. This was misleading. I find no reliable references to the Thielbek as a "hell ship" or "Höllenschiff". The passage cited above describes conditions that could be called infernal in an essayistic text, or compared to Imperial Japanese Jigoku Sen, but it doesn't make this comparison or mention the word "hell ship". I asked user:Clio_the_Muse to dig in and see what could be found. Regards. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Sluzzelin, I've answered on my talk page, copied below. Clio the Muse 22:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Sluzzelin. A search of the Cambridge catalogue under 'hell ships' only calls up Raymond Lamont-Brown's Ships from Hell: Japanese War Crimes on the High Seas. Beyond that there is one other source that I know of: Death on Hell Ships: Prisoners at Sea in the Pacific War by Gregory F. Michno. I have absolutely no doubt at all that conditions on these Nazi ships were indeed hellish by any reasonable measure, as indeed they were on the Trans-Atlantic slave ships; but the point remains that the term 'Hell ships' has come to refer to a particular historical phenomenon. To use it more widely thus risks confusion over issues of interpretation. I hope this is useful.
Yes, I read some of Langgäser's stories, in an anthology of post-war German literature, while I was still at school. I hope I always impress you, dear Sluzzelin! Best wishes. Clio the Muse 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Penwhale

It doesn't appear he is likely to admit his errors (thus, the chances of these being repeated appears great) but I commend you for trying. Best, El_C 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope he does give it some reflection. Oh dear, I can't type what I'm thinking right now. Thanks, El C. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good job reply

Thanks for the post-game rubdown. I don't remember who was where; it's not that important to me. We all have plenty to learn, and we're all in this to make Wikipedia better no matter what our personality or viewpoint. Nice quote from your "another user", I couldn't agree more. --Milkbreath 00:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And I couldn't agree more with your third sentence. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy horsy


Cheers! — Sebastian 08:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

And hence I shouldn't go back and re-decide again and again. I've fixed it -- Tawker 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom Elections

bah hahahahahahaahaha..sorry.. I blame my veryyyy slow connection and multiple edit conflict..sorry again..Thanks for fixing it :P...--Cometstyles 12:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Thank-you for your kind and reassuring comments :) [1]. Without realising it, that was just the reassurance I needed to hear. It's such an uncomfortable situation and I keep going over in my mind that I might have been advising (potentially) a paedophile on how to get a job with children. Seraphim Whipp 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad, because the reference desk can only function on the principle of assuming good faith. There's really no need to sweat it, Seraphim, your answer was kind, appropriate, and even if this was a paedophile (which I highly doubt), nothing you wrote is going to egg him on or "give him ideas" beyond what he already knows.
We've had "disruptors" asking series of inflammatory questions, we've had defamation of minorities, querents seeking instructions on how to commit criminal or violent acts, and all sorts of other unpleasantries. It's hardly ever possible to unequivocally discern whether the questioner is serious or just having a go at the deskians ("trolling" in other words), and it doesn't really matter. As long as the answers don't enter the debate, but point out false premises, add references, or find another cool way to answer these questions, I have no problem whatsoever, personally. I just stay away from them more often than not, because I find them utterly depressing. Keep up the good work, and see you at the desks! :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish

Does anyone know the Spanish word for "Chorus" ... that is, the repeated chorus that is sung between the different verses (or stanzas) in a song? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

estribillo means chorus in the sense of refrain. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for your reply --- I appreciate it. I don't know any Spanish whatsoever. Therefore, would you be so kind as to take a look at the following article: Cielito Lindo ...? Is your proposed term "estribillo" the correct word to use in the context of this article? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC))
You're very welcome, Joseph. Estribillo would apply in the article's context, yes, but I wouldn't necessarily change the word chorus to estribillo in the Spanish lyrics. It is a formal note, not part of the lyrics, something like stage directions for lack of a better word, and I would keep it in English, since this is English Wikipedia. I may be wrong of course, and I don't see WP:MOS addressing this, but there are so many policy pages. Maybe ask for some more input in the thread at the language desk or at Wikipedia:Help desk? ---Sluzzelin talk 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your email

I was commenting on your actions, I think my language in this respect was perfectly clear. You are a good contributor to the ref desks, and usually display good judgement. I think the episode is a perfect example of why and how "off-wiki" discussions are so damaging. In this case, a few admins made up a policy for dealing with a disruptive editor, the fact that the community was not allowed to discuss or even know about this policy is the cause of the unpleasentness. For what it's worth. I doubt I'll be on the refdesks much now, I can't work with secret policies. DuncanHill (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are needed

Sluzzelin, I hope you were not serious in saying that you were taking a break from the Reference Desks. We need you, no, I need you, more than ever. Love Clio the Muse (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

 :-) I am serious about the break. I need distance. As I pointed out to Duncan, I need to regain my disinterest. But you're not rid of me. I'll be back when I'm ready. Please keep it up at the reference desk. You're the one that's needed! Didn't you see the how incomplete the Humanities desk looked last holiday season? The question is, is WT:RD needed? Love ---Sluzzelin talk 04:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good followup on ref desk talk page. Don't worry about my talk page and I'm hoping we'll be back to normal relations pretty soon anyway. Certainly don't blame yourself, I'm sure no one else does. David D. (Talk) 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Please do take a break, but please, please come back. The LC business was inevitable, as TS has been gently agitating for a while, so don't beat yourself up over that. Rockpocket 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)