User talk:Tresckow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wassertrüdingen 2 speedy 3 move 4 Re:ksiaceta wirtemberscy 5 Maria Feodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg) / Wars of Schleswig 6 Württemberg 7 WP:GSWN 8 re:jadger 9 RE: Your message 10 WP:AN 11 fasion fashion 12 Alte Kameraden 13 Counts of Württemberg 14 "Weblinks" 15 You're a cunt 16 Germans then and now 17 Freundin 18 Your question regarding to Spanish political parties during the Second Republic 19 Garrigues 20 Reference Desk Question 21 Red Letter 22 Border issues

[edit] Wassertrüdingen

I didn't put the "translation in course" sign there, that was Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Better ask him/her if you want to make this a nice article, or be bold... Markussep 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speedy

Under no circumstances should use a normal speedy tag to request a move as you did with Maria Fyodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Wurttemberg). You should do the move yourself!

Note that I did this move but reversed because of the massive number if double (and triple!) redirects it would have created: special:whatlinkshere/Maria Fyodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Wurttemburg). -- RHaworth 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• wurtemburgh. So the fictional country wurttmeburg stays the way just because the redirects changed it into fact?--Tresckow 14:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you have managed to give further variant spelling suggests that the spelling is not very important. I have no objection any different title, providing that you are prepared to fix the double and triple redirects. Go for it man. You may need to use {{Db-histmerge}} to get the article itself moved. -- RHaworth 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• ok ill try it myself. i have to say that considering the spelling isnt important because everyone is misspelling it is kind of wierd. so if enoough people spell it lenkester it would be ok? well i dont mind--Tresckow 14:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, given the comments on the talk page, I think you should seek second opinions before you start changing things. -- RHaworth 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] move

Talk:Württemberg Landtag Elections in the Weimar Republic states moved here from Wurttemburg Landtag Elections in the Weimar Republic. That is not true. You did not move the article, you did a copy and paste. This is wrong - copy and paste destroys the edit history. If you wish to change the title of an article, you must use the move command (or db-histmerge if necessary, as I mentioned above). Please show some discipline. -- RHaworth 01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

i didnt consider the history thingy. i added the histmerge tag and hope ive done it right now.--Tresckow 08:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The merge source in the histmerge tag in this edit was a non-existent article. And a histmerge was not really needed because the article had already been properly moved with its history. Never mind - as long as you now grasp the principle! -- RHaworth 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:ksiaceta wirtemberscy

Ah, thanks, seems like something I was working on some months ago - but now I forget which article specifically might have prompted you to message me with that piece of info?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Feodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg) / Wars of Schleswig

No problem. It seems like Europeans in generel agree that our names should be spelled properly. :) This goes for both Danes, Germans, Poles, Romanians etc. I find this essential if we want to claim to strive for scientific accuracy and if we can't claim to strive for this, then what is the point participating here at all? "WürttemBURG" ist nur Quatsch. :) You can no doubt imagine how many different ways Ærøskøbing has been rendered in English.

This was a great opportunity to get in touch with you. I noticed your edits to Second War of Schleswig and the Battle of Dybbøl. Could I persuade you to consult your sources about the level of actual involvement on part of the German Confederation? I'm asking because the Danish sources that I've pretty much relied on, are rather poor in this respect. In Denmark this story is normally summed up thus: the German Confederation authorized a Confederate occupation of Holstein (which happend peacefully, including with troops from the Kingdom of Hannover). However, the actual crossing on the Eider is - in Danish literature - normally described as unauthorized by the Confederation but "only" authorized by Bismarck, and consequently only Prussian and Austrian troops participated north of the Eider. Would you mind checking what your sources say regarding this? In Denmark the occupation of Holstein was not perceived as the outbreak of war, but the intervention into Schleswig was. This is also the motivation for my edits to the infobox.

I've also ended up somewhat in doubt about if Schleswig was actually admitted to the German Confederation during the First War of Schleswig. After the conclusion of peace in 1851 it was emphasized by Denmark that only Holstein was a member of the Confederation but I'm not sure how bold the Schleswig-Holsteiners had been in this respect during the war. If they filed an application for membership, perhaps we should clarify this in the article about the German Confederation? Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 08:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Württemberg

I'm not convinced it shouldn't be Karl of Württemberg. I have seen him with an ordinal, as well. Before it gets moved, again, I'd like to see some evidence put forward about both whether or not the ordinal was used (I know his grandfather used an ordinal, despite being the only King Frederick of Württemberg), and as to whether the English or German form is more common in English. john k 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I imagine Frederick took the "I" to indicate his new status as a king (as duke he was Frederick IV or III, I believe), while Karl had no need to do this, but the inconsistency is still a bit annoying. Wikipedia does not, in fact, always anglicize royalty names. It sometimes does, and sometimes doesn't. This is maddeningly inconsistent for 19th century German rulers, although it is theoretically meant to be based on English usage. When we never anglicize a name, like Juan Carlos, it isn't anglicized. When we always anglicize, like Nicholas II of Russia, we anglicize. For cases like these German rulers, it's unclear, although we seem at the moment to tend towards anglicizing. I would personally prefer "Karl of Württemberg," though. john k 02:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think names that are always anglicized should be anglicized in the English wikipedia. "Nikolai II" or "Fernando VII" would look odd and pedantic, I think. But when both uses are common, I tend to think we should prefer the native version. On the German wikipedia, I note de:Heinrich VIII. (England) and de:Ferdinand II. (Aragón), so clearly your claim for the Germans is not true, at least on wikipedia. A guy like this, though, who is almost never referred to in English except by specialists or genealogists, should probably be at the German form. john k 02:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously names with no obvious English equivalent, like Eberhard of Ulrich, are not anglicized. In terms of where to put him, there is a problem in that all the other kings of Württemberg are at the anglicized forms. I'd like a universal solution - perhaps we should just move to Charles of Württemberg for now, and decide upon the question of anglicization in a more general fashion? john k 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How about if

1. I move the article on Karl to Charles of Württemberg for the moment
2. You open a requested move discussion at Talk:Charles of Württemberg, and post notes on the other talk pages for the kings of Württemberg, and possibly also at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), noting a suggestion for a move of all the articles on kings of Württemberg. Then we can see what comes of it. john k 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:GSWN

Hello Tresckow! In case you have not heard of it before, I'd like to mention the Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board (and its discussion page). Cheers, Olessi 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:jadger

thank you. do you know if there is a cost involved to look at the old passenger lists? I may be going to Germany relatively soon and would be keen to research it more.

--Jadger 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your message

At this point, I'm not sure my warning him will do any good. Someone needs to buy this kid a clue. I'll mention it on the Admin noticeboard.--Isotope23 03:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you reported it there and he's been warned again. Let me know if it happens again.--Isotope23 03:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN

I removed your post, as the Administrator noticeboard isn't really the place for reporting personal attacks like this. In this case, just warn the user with the appropriate template {{subst:npa}}, and if they continue, post {{subst:npa2}} then {{subst:npa4}}. If they make attacks after that, report them to WP:AIV and they will be dealt with speedily. Thanks. yandman 10:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fasion fashion

Thanks for your correction on my userpage:) now i wonder how could i miss that:)) cheers --Boyau 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alte Kameraden

Hi! Thank's for your contributions to Alte Kameraden. I noticed that my bot(User:STBotD) said it was removing a link to your article and wanted to take a look. Just so you know, it is not necessary to make an interwiki link ([[en:Alte Kameraden]]) except to a different language, such as the one to de:Alte Kameraden that I added. Thanks for your hard work! ST47Talk 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counts of Württemberg

Thanks for your articles! Please create redirects, instead of editing my user-space pages. Kmorozov 06:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Weblinks"

Make a point of typing 'External links' as opposed to 'Weblinks'. You did this on the page Gaisburger Marsch, and I've noticed you doing quite a bit. (I sporadically take up the challenge of patrolling your recent edits). --Kronecker 04:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

who cares if you do.--Tresckow 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're a cunt

--Kronecker 7 September 2007

Oh, I missed your witty remarks little boy.--Tresckow 01:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And I missed your poor English. --Kronecker 9 September 2007

[edit] Germans then and now

Thank you for the link. --Ghostexorcist 22:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freundin

Tresckow, thank you for that wonderful map. I left a message for you on my talk page, but I thought I would come here and visit you also. I see from your edit history that you have done a little work on the Michael Offensive. It may interest you to know that, while my ancestry is mostly English, I had a German great-grandfather, who saw action in the spring offensive as a junior officer in one of the storm-trooper formations. Unfortunately I do not know an awful lot about him, though I do know that he spent most of the war on the eastern front before being transferred to the west in 1918. Another of my great-grandfathers was on the other side. Fortunately for me they never met up!

I would be pleased to assist you in future in any way I can. I must say I am disturbed to read the crude and distasteful message two steps above. I hope you have reported this? My very best wishes. Clio the Muse 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Clio, thanks for your kind words. I also had relatives on both sites in the Great War. In my case Germany and France. I am not really longer active here. The manners on the English Wikipedia are pretty rude and reporting is kind of fruitless.--Tresckow 21:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll see, Tresckow. I would like to report this rudness on your behalf, unless you have a specific objection? Clio the Muse 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

None. But it´s only an IP, the User was already banned months ago.--Tresckow 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Please, please do not let ugly minds like his put you off English Wikipedia. I would hate that to happen. We need people like you; I need people like you. Clio the Muse 02:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Per Clio's request, I removed that personal attack from your page. I will not remove it from the page history, though as it is better that a record remain as evidence so that individual who made will not be unblocked in the foreseeable future. I'll make a note of his continuing abuse on his talkpage also. As Clio says, please don't let such individuals deter your from contributing here. Best wishes, Rockpocket 19:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your question regarding to Spanish political parties during the Second Republic

I've added another reply to your question. Farewell. --Taraborn 19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garrigues

I am currently proposing that the Garrigues page should be replaced by the content now found on the Garrigues (disambiguation) page and the the material presently on the Garrigues page should be moved to a new page to be titled Les Garrigues, Catalonia If you have the time I would appreciate your comments on the Discussion page at Garrigues. I hope you will agree. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Desk Question

I hope that I answered your question on Cultural Relations satisfactorily, if not then give me a shout on my talk page and I'll see what I can fill in! I've been doing a bit of work on the Grand Tour recently - in particular imports in literature. One example for you Philip James de Loutherbourg was born in Strasbourg where he was taught minature painting by his father, then he moved to Paris becoming involved in theatrical paintings and then moved to London where he brought together his ideas and innovated stage design - finally creating something called the Eidophusikon - the fore-forefather of moving pictures! Lord Foppington (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Letter

Hi, Tresckow. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get round to this. It is indeed, as I suspected, a reference to the Zinoviev Letter scandal. The Cavalry Club was a very prestigious London institution, founded in 1890 by a former officer of the 20th Hussars. It drew its members from those with wealthy and upper-class military backgrounds, people whose political inclinations were solidly conservative. Even in normal times Communism would be considered to be a dangerous and alien doctrine for these people, but much more so during the Zinoviev affair. Thinking of a German example, it would be as if Rosa Luxembourg had applied for membership of the Herren Club!

Orwell is trying to illustrate, obviously for an English readership, the suspicion and hostility attached to the POUM at the time by those under Communist influence. I hope this is clear! Best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your, as always, detailed answer.--Tresckow (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, Tresckow. I hope you are well. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh tanks, yes I am. Just a bit exhausted. I finished a work for my university and couldn´t think or talk about something else for quite a while. So I am glad I´m finishd with that.--Tresckow (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Border issues

Hi, Tresckow. Since this thread has now been archived I though I would also post my reponse here, just in case you missed it. Best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tresckow; that was very useful. I don't want to belabour the point, but I have to say-and I know the scale does not help to make it absolutely clear-but that slightly rounded edge suggests to me the border of 1914, rather than the more angular post-Versailles border. But let that pass. I'm still puzzled, though. Are you saying that the SPD was, in fact, laying a nominal claim to those territories lost to Poland in 1918-19 as late as the 1950s? Surely the Treaty of Final Settlement and the subsequent German Polish Border Treaty only relates to the territories east of the Oder-Neisse Line, lost in 1945? Clio the Muse (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the treaty only was about post 45 losses. Sorry if I wasn´t clear. „Verzicht ist Verrat, wer wollte das bestreiten. 100 Jahre SPD heißt vor allem 100 Jahre Kampf für das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker. Das Recht auf Heimat kann man nicht für ein Linsengericht verhökern. Niemals darf hinter dem Rücken der aus ihrer Heimat vertriebenen oder geflüchteten Landleute Schindluder getrieben werden!“ (Relinqhishment is treason, who could deny that. 100 years of SPD in the first place means 200 years fight for the selfdetermination of the people. The right on home (Heimat, a stronger term in German) can not be huckstered away for a meal of lentils. Never it is allowed to play fast and loose behind the back of those dispersed and fled of their home!) Appeal for the german wide meeting of the Silesians in 1963 by Willy Brandt, Herbert Wehner and Erich Ollenhauer. This is taken form de:wp (de:Vertreibung), not the best source but the only one available to me on the moment. But this changed since 1965 due to the Ostpolitik. See also Herbert Hupka and Wenzel Jaksch.

The map [1]is clearyl without A-L.

. You can tell because the edge reaches further east into Germany, the current border lacks the edge in the extreme southwest of Alsace-France (1914) and finally the shape of Luxemburg is much clearer in 1914. The east and south border of it are wellmarked. I found this bigger version of the map on a dubious rightwing site that might make it easier to spot the difference [2]

--Tresckow (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tresckow. I think it's very well done. I still believe that SPD poster shows Germany before 1914, though, with the inclusion of Danzig and West Prussia-unless the printer went quite mad! Clio the Muse (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Danzig and West Prussia are of course included. So is I believe North-Schleswig (although it is covered by letters). The only thing missing is Alsace-Lorraine.--Tresckow (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)