User talk:Olessi/Archive07

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary. Thank you.

Note: If a conversation is spread across the talk pages of multiple users, I take  ''the liberty to copy related snippets to this talk page. Some comments were not '' ''directly written on this page, but are always shown in the correct context.  Formatting may be adjusted for consistency.''

March 2008 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter
This newsletter is delivered by a bot to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, - Newsletter Bot 'Talk  15:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)''

Phillies WikiProject...?
Not sure how involved you are with Wikipedia as a whole, but here's something you might find particularly interesting: here EaglesFanInTampa 13:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Koroška i.e. "Slovenian Carinthia", wrongly "Carinthia (Province)"
You removed my correction of a false and totally misleading entry called "Carinthia (Province), without giving any explanation on the "Discussion" page, where I argued my alterations,  and you removed all improvements I made on an article that showed an extremely subjective attitude of certain nationalistic Slovene circles that has crept into a number of articles,  especially in the English edition of WIKIPEDIA. By definition a province is "an administrative division of a country". Slovenia, however, is not divided into provinces. In the text the area is called an "informal province". Would you care to explain how an administrative division can function "informally"? There were three historic regions in Slovenia - Kranjska, Preklmurje, and Primorska. In 1918 the Slovene-speaking part of Styria, "Untersteiermark", i.e. "Lower Styria", was added as "Štajerska" (i.e."Styria"), and  three small mostly Slovene-speaking parts of the former Austrian Duchy of Carinthia were also ceded to the new SHS State. In Yugoslavia this area was then provocatively named "Koroška", the Slovene version of "Kärnten" (= Carinthia), and in 1919 and in 1945 attempts were made with military force to enlarge this westward. Two of the three parts now form part of a much larger area of a European Union NUTS 3 level region reported by Slovenia to EUSTAT for statistical purposes. In order to qualify as a NUTS level 3 region (population 150,000 - 800,000) the region, which  now also goes by the name of "Koroška, now comprises a number of municipalities that were part of the Duchy of Styrian, not of Carinthia, whereas one of the three Carinthian parts was attached to the statistical region of Upper Carniola (which again is no "province", as there are no provinces in Slovenia at all). So this new region  "Koroška" for EU purposes does not qualify for the ancient historical name of "Carinthia", which would be a thoroughly misleading term for it. Don't you agree that topographical names of (new) states ought to be used in the country's own language, not in the language of their former masters? Cf. Mumbai, Banjul, Bratislava, or Taiwan, Sri Lanka, even Bejing. Would you call the  capital of Slovenia "Laibach"? Slovenians would be awfully sour, and rightly so. "Carinthia", however, was the Latin translation of German "Kärnten". Of course, the word "Koroška", which is derived from old "Korotan", ultimately goes back to the word "Carantania", from which the words "Carinthia" and "Kärnten" also derive. In the same way, however, monkey and Man also have common ancestors, but if Man is Homo sapiens in Latin, do you then call a monkey also Homo sapiens? I propose to give justice to Slovenia and to remove the reference to "Carinthia" altogether. The article ought to be movedto "Koroška". Let the British and Americans learn how to pronounce foreign words. Utter nonsense is the German translation "Kärnten" of "Slovene Carinthia". The German word only applies to the Austrian member state. If Slovenia claims the right to redefine the region of Koroška, Austria reserves the right to define the borders of Kärnten. <br<You also changed my description of Austrian Carinthia as a "constituent state " of Austria, calling Carinthia  a "federal state". You claim to be a native speaker of English. Strange, so far I have heard or read this term only from German speakers with a limited competence of English attempting to reproduce in English both parts of the word "Bundesland" (which, of course, means "state of a federation", not "federal state"). In 1918 former crownlands of the Austrian Empire, then suddenly independent states, joined to form a new Republic of Austria. Austria herself is thus a federal state, consisting of 9 constituent states or member states. Marschner (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, you moved the article by simply saying "Old title is incorrect". I then reverted the move and asked for clarification on the talk page. Only after I reverted your move did you provide rationale on the talk page. My interest was not the accuracy of your edits, but your unilateral undiscussed changes. Olessi (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding Clark
Your edits are counterproductive. Adding Iron Kingdom as source ? The book is Prussian hagiography, the policies of Prussia aimed against Polish nation and its eventual eradication(the famous "austrotten") are described by author as "pragmatic" and "non-nationalistic". The author does not hide his love for Prussia in claiming that his goal is to "fight against black legend of Prussia". This obvious POV is not suitable to be included as source of neutral observations. --Molobo (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New naming convention
A new naming convention for places in Slovakia is being discussed at User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Since these new rules might be later regarded as a precedent by non-involved editors (remember the Danzig/Gdansk case?), I think you will find this ongoing discussion and a poll interesting. Tankred (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Kattowitz (district)
Thanks for cleaning this up. Could you clarify one thing (perhaps with the help of de wiki): did this district exist in the years of 1922-1939, or was it incorporated into another one? To be specific, I wonder if the Kattowitz district existed in interwar Germany even when the city of Katowice (Kattowitz) was part of Poland? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
Please respect WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a Western encyclopedia for a Western audience. It is a global resource for a global audience. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Teutonic takeover
Hi! As you (moved Teutonic Takeover of Gdańsk to Teutonic takeover of Gdańsk: descriptive title, not a proper name), I wonder what this means? I think you have cleaned up the various redirects to point to this name, too. Please explain the proper name on talk. Two editorw were move warring with the article. I don't want to continue this by a move to yet another creative name, but the current name is not acceptable. -- Matthead Discuß   18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Gdansk rule
Bogislaw vs Bogusław, Stettin (Szczecin) vs Szczecin etc is an RFC I filed to avoid further edit and rv wars; as you are quite active in medieval history esp in German/Slavic matters, you might want to give an oppinion or know a board where I can draw some attention to this case... Skäpperöd (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Eberhard Jäckel
You had added the category Category:University of Florida alumni to Eberhard Jäckel. I have been searching the net and could not confirm that he attended classes or received a degree from the University of Florida. Can you provide a source? Thanks Jccort (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This site mentions him studying in Gainesville. Olessi (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorys of German football clubs and leagues
Great work on all the categorys, quite an effort! Just one suggestion I would like to make. The clubs I've put into the Category:Bavarian football clubs and Category:Baden-Württemberg football clubs should still remain in the Category:German football clubs. I think, this would be the first place somebody would look for an article, not its state category. Right now, the situation is that some are and other not, for example, Würzburger FV is only in the Bavarian category while Kickers Würzburg is in both, even so they play in the same town and league. At least, we should make it uniform, in my opinion. I've created the two state categorys mainly to be able to "look after" those clubs since I'm trying to maintain and update clubs from those two regions. Your categorising of the Gauliga articles is excellent, I have to say, real good stuff! EA210269 (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree with you on not having hundreds of articles in one category. Subdividing them in states definately makes things a lot easier to administrate. I know, its a large task, I'm trying to look after just the southern German ones and it already keeps me busy! Keep up the good work there!
 * Regarding the plurals, there doesn't seem to be much of a common opinion, some people prefer -s, some -en, we actually had a bit of a discussion on it. The outcome was, to use -s unless we explain the German plural at the start of the article, see also here. Take care, all the best, EA210269 (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:UE
HI I am informing you on the following discussions referring to the usage of diacritics on en.wiki. It seem there is a movement/campaign of some peple (moreover administrators) which try to eliminate them from the usage on en .wiki. Or at least to minimize, even for personal names in Latin script

Since I have seen your name in some discussion I thought it would be nice to inform you. Pay attention to the following pages :WP:UE, Usage of diacritics and similar ones if you are interested.

--Anto (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Summer!
Happy First Day of Summer! Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008!

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!

Give this greeting to others by adding   on their Talk Page.

Thanks
I appreciate your kind words. I was not happy to see it portrayed as a move war between me and Malleus. The cut and paste moves pissed me off because Malleus created all those diocese pages just so that it couldn't be moved manually. Glad someone sees it for what it was. I'm sorry if it affected any of the talk pages, I tried to keep them as intact as possible.Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Districts of Lauenburg and Bütow
What do you think? Another naming dispute... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ritterswerder
Thanks for the translation! Maybe you can figure out under what circumstances it was mentioned again in 1404? There are some old books on Google books about it, but they are in German. It would be interesting to know what that rather cryptic remark in Lithuanian meant. Thanks, Renata (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:History of Pomerania
I think it's high time to create this category, similar to Category:History of Silesia and so on. Would you agree? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds quite sensible. Olessi (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Red and other stuff
Hi, Olessi! Here are the changes I've made: Not sure what you wanted me to do about Romincka Forest—it looks fine to me, so I made no changes. If there was something specific you wanted me to comment on there, please let me know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * moved "Deima" to Deyma River (per WP:RUS and according to the river naming conventions, which require that "river" is included in the article's title);
 * moved "Instruch" to Instruch River (river naming conventions);
 * merged "Krasnaya" into Krasny (for Russian adjectives, masculine form is always the main entry), also removed several entries such as Krasnaya Sloboda, as none of those entities is ever referred to as simply "Krasny/Krasnaya/Krasnoye"; the adjective is simply a part of their names.
 * P.S. Looking at WP:RIVER (something I haven't done for a while), it seems the project no longer care if the articles are called simply "X" or "X River", so feel free to revert that part of my changes if you feel it is necessary and/or beneficial. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The romanization was correct. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Regierungsbezirk
Hey Olessi, thank you for your always welcome advise. Right now, I don't know how much further I will / can expand the Reg.-bez. sections in the Province of Pomerania article. If we make articles out of the Reg-Bez sections, I fear we will end up with five stub-like articles instead of one average sized as it is now. Maybe it is better to first wait if the article gets expanded ? Nevertheless I wrote the section texts in a way that the sections can stand by their own, that's why right now some information is in the article twice. I intend to further expand the article, but my offline life (esp the children) limit my Wikipedia-time :) and, once I'm online, Molobo and his pals get me involved into these time-wasting annoying discussions about blatant eternal evilness of Germans and their history, especially in the East, which "unfortunately" is my home and my primary sphere of interest here :(

To make a long story short, I'd wait with splitting the article until both the Reg-bez sections and the rump get well above stub-size. Best regards Skäpperöd (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mazurs
Sounds good to me. More comments at WP:PWNB? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your input appreciated
Here (regarding Annaberg's move).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Of interest
Long overdue, I finally split History of Silesia from Silesia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Duchy of Pomerania
I moved most of the people listed in the Duchy of Pomerania cat to the Province of Pomerania cat. I saw you moved some the opposite way before. I think it is more appropriate to have people born between 1648 and 1815 in Farther Pomerania and those born between 1720 and 1815 in Altvorpommern listed in the Province cat rather than the Duchy cat, since the duchy ceased to exist de facto in 1630, per death of the last duke in 1637 and "officially" in 1648, and the mentioned areas were Prussian since then. I know the province was complete only in 1815, yet the mentioned territories were kind of a province of Pomerania well before, although I do not know whether the name was explicitly used already. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A question
I noticed you are using the same sources that are used in rather POV and in my opinion rather nationalist edits by German user Karasek. The source is someone called "Hugo Weczerka" Are you using two accounts ? Also what are the credentials of this author, what are the reviews of his works. I do not consider him to be a reliable source. He is involved with the political organisation in Germany that has close links to far right and former Nazis as this entry shows Hugo Weczerka: 1950 - 50. Gedenkjahr: Gründung des Johann Gottfried Herder-Forschungsrates und des Johann Gottfried Herder-Instituts in Marburg an der Lahn. In: Ostdeutsche Gedenktage 2000, '''Hrsg. Kulturstiftung der deutschen Vertriebenen''' Bonn 1999, S. 384-392. The organisations of Vertriebene are a political movement that has claims against Poland, and contains several former Nazis, in fact the leader of their main party was a Nazi judge himself Hans Kruger. Obviously a person who is a writer for a political movement that has claims against Poland, and is safe haven for many former Nazis(as reported by German press itself, I could also add Polish press reports how easy it is to buy Waffen SS songs about conquering Poland at their meetings) is not a reliable source of information. I suggest removing this dubious source and providing someone not involved with this extreme movement.--Molobo (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Olessi seems to be away: Hugo Weczerka was director of the Gottfried Herder-institute in Marburg/Lahn until 1995, one of the leading institutes for historical research on East- and Central Europe. The institute is member of the Leibniz Association and funded by the federal government and all sixteen federal states. The book "Handbuch der historischen Stätten", which we both use, is part of a series about German or former German regions. This series is one of the standard references of historical sciences in Germany.
 * The book you mentioned is about his former institute. It was published by the Kulturstiftung der deutschen Vertriebenen. The goal of this institute is also historical and cultural research, but only on former German territory. Its also sponsored by the federal government and some federal states (I think mainly Bavaria), with several representatives of the states and the government in the board of trustees.
 * Summing up: a respected scientist writes a book about his former work place. A different institute, with the same field of work, publishes his work. Both institutes are sponsored and controlled by the public and representatives of a democratic state. And all this has almost nothing to do with the book we use as a reference.
 * PS: calling my edits "rather nationalist" is a pretty funny statement. How long is your list of blocks right now? LOL. Karasek (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly an argument, BdV which has former Nazis in its structures also is funded by federal governmnt. In fact the federal government once had former Nazis like Hans Kruger among its ministers, so using this as argument is not the best option. That he belongs to institute is likewise nothing that speaks for his neutrality-many institutes are working with agenda or view. In this you yourself admitted that his book portays Polish regions as German or former German regions. A organisation that has former Nazis, allows sales of Waffen SS songs about invasion of Poland during its meetings publishes a work that claims Polish territories are German or were German-that is extremely unreliable source.--Molobo (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

--- Hi Olessi,

I just came across old discussions on nationality, now in Archive 6 and I added this. Please have a look at this, because all these different Wikipedia Categories and split-ups do not seem to add to clarification and understanding, they just seem to confuse people even more. Thanks for taking a look. An Observer 10 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.197.97 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Another matter about Sources used at Wikipedia
After I entered the discussion about Nationality I read the last User:Molobo utterance. I believe it is time to check and specify, which of the many many Polish sources flooding a large part of Wikipedia articles are written by Communist Era writers and perhaps to disqualify, to take these highly often extreme Nationalistic POV sources, forced on Wikipedia, out or at least lable them as such. Honest Polish writers today after the Collaps of Communism even admit to Polish Communist Historiography. Yet Wikipedia seems to massivly multiply this Polish Communist Historiography via input for example by Molobo etc. An Observer 10 September 2008

Warmia/Ermland
Hi Olessi,

your input would be appreciated at Talk:Duchy_of_Warmia.

To lay out the idea, also to put an end to the naming controversy I'd make the article Warmia/Ermland into a disamb page that would direct readers to:


 * Bishopric-Ducy of Ermland?? (1243-1466) Prince-Bishopric of Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights and Prussian Confederation


 * Episcopal Duchy of Warmia (1466-1772) Prince-Bishopric of Poland-Lithuania


 * Bishopric of Ermland 1772-1945 a Bishopric of Province of East Prussia


 * Archbishopric of Warmia Polish bishopric since (1945) 1972

Please comment if it would be sensible to split the Episcopal Duchy that existed up to 1772 into German and Polish periods? Adn what would you call it then for the period of 1243-1466? All other comments and thoughts also welcome at the talk page. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For expanding Christian Ludwig von Kalckstein; I couldn't find more materials when I wrote about him. I've nominated him at T:TDYK, I think a better hook would be that he was the only person executed during the reign of FW, but you didn't prove a ref for that (and DYKs demand inline cites for hooks now). I think at least one of his sons was a notable military commander? Also, can you find more materials for the Prussian estates - I think it is a fascinating subject, but seems rather poorly described in sources (I can't find any comprehensive overview).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

History of Wrocław
Would you mind commenting on talk:Wrocław ? I've gone ahead and created History of Wrocław, where you may also like to lend a hand. (you once proposed just such a thing) Jd2718 (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Old-Teutonic-German-Livonia?
Please comment: Talk:Livonian_Confederation. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Where are you??
I can't believe I am the first to ask this here... but we MISS you! Where are you, Olessi? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Piotrus, can you imagine that some people could possibly be fed up with the endless shenanigans on Wikipedia? -- Matthead Discuß   23:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Danzig recording
Greetings! I came across your sound recording File:Danzig.ogg and it sounds somewhat off to me. I'm not a native German speaker, but from what I understand the "ig" at the end takes on a more of a "ich" sound, as in, say, "langweilig" or "traurig". See for example the machine generated LEO pronunciation. Perhaps we should get a native speaker to make a judgment on it? --Wikiacc (¶) 02:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been a year
I can't believe it. We still miss you... please say, at least, that you are all right! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please consider adding yourself to WikiProject Poland/Members
Hi. During our periodic activity check-ups at WikiProject Poland, I've noticed you are using our User WikiProject Poland but you have not added yourself to WikiProject Poland/Members. I'd like to encourage you to do so. One of the primary benefits will be that you'll start receiving our on-wiki Project Newsletter! :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Monitor. WikiProject Poland Newsletter: Issue 1 (April 2011)
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Gilbert Murray OM
Hello. I've just amended the category you added here back on 1 May 2008, because he was awarded the British Order of Merit, not any Prussian award. There's nothing about the latter award in the article. But given it's been sitting there unchallenged for over two and a half years, I wonder if others know something I don't. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz  [your turn]  09:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Olessi has retired
Olessi has retired and has Been Defunct For 4 years. His last edit was at 19 September 2008(22:46 UTC) .Sometimes, he may be editing under any other account.Wikiage:28 March 2005-19 September 2008(3 years)Mir Almaat Ali Almaat  ☏  08:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(delivered by mabdul 23:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC))

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''