Wikiup Diskussion:Botschaft/Archiv/2012

Diese Seite ist ein Archiv abgeschlossener Diskussionen. Ihr Inhalt sollte daher nicht mehr verändert werden. Benutze bitte die aktuelle Diskussionsseite, auch um eine archivierte Diskussion weiterzuführen.

Um einen Abschnitt dieser Seite zu verlinken, klicke im Inhaltsverzeichnis auf den Abschnitt und kopiere dann Seitenname und Abschnittsüberschrift aus der Adresszeile deines Browsers, beispielsweise

[[Wikiup Diskussion:Botschaft/Archiv/2012#Thema 1]]

oder als Weblink zur Verlinkung auVorlage:SSerhalb der Wikipedia

https://de.wikiup.org/wiki/Wikiup_Diskussion:Botschaft/Archiv/2012#Thema_1

Japanese names

Hi! The cutoff for Japanese names being presented in western order on the German Wikipedia is 1923. On the English Wikipedia I think it's around 1868?

I wonder why the German date is different WhisperToMe 23:51, 7. Jan. 2012 (CET)

QuickEdit

Hallo, Bitte aktualisiere Benutzer:ASM/quickedit-lang.js von Benutzer Diskussion:ASM/quickedit-lang.js.--Zack (Diskussion) 00:22, 8. Apr. 2012 (CEST)

Frederick Lowy

The article Frederick Lowy is a translation from en:Frederick Lowy. I think this person is notable. Could you please repair any errors in translation? Eastmain (Diskussion) 05:05, 14. Mai 2012 (CEST)

Proposing a username usurpation policy

On Wikipedia Diskussion:Benutzernamen ändern/Problemfälle it has been discussed that many users are unable to unify their Single Unified Login accounts because their usernames (on other wikipedias) conflict with an existing de-wiki username. Why this is is a nuisance: For example if I need to edit the interwiki links in several wikipedias, on most of them I am automatically logged in, but for de-wiki I have to log in separately because my username here is different. This then seems to log out my regular account in the other wikipedias, so then I have to log in again!

To solve this problem, many wikipedias have a policy that allows a user to "usurp" an existing name, if that user is quite passive (made only a few edits long ago, and none recently). See, for example, fi:WP:USURP. The idea is that such a user would not probably mind if their username is slightly changed (a passive user called "Qwerty" might be changed to "Qwerty2", and an active user called "Qwerty" on several wikipedias can then take over the name "Qwerty"). The problem is that if you ask such a passive user whether they accept the change (by posting a message on their user talk page) they will not probably even know about it (thus cannot answer). Because of this, usurpation is often done after some waiting period anyway, if the passive user has not objected.

De-wiki does not seem to have such a policy. I do not know the local policies nor can I write in German, so: How should one proceed to propose a usurpation policy here? --Jmkfi (Diskussion) 11:02, 23. Mai 2012 (CEST)

A poll is needed for that. Unfortunately, it has become quite complicated and exhausting to prepare these. You need to find a kind person, who is motivated enough to initiate a poll and see it through. You could try asking at the village pump (most users understand English) if someone would be willing to do that. However, I am quite sure, somebody will suggest that there are legal (license) problems with renaming passive users. --Rosentod (Diskussion) 13:04, 23. Mai 2012 (CEST)

Thanks for information! It would be rather difficult to initiate a poll properly myself (not knowing the relevant rules and not knowing the language), so I guess you are right that I need some kind person to do that for me :-) Concerning the license issues, I don't think they are forbidding since so many other Wikipedias are able to rename passive users. Surely they are bound by the same (or similar) licenses as the German Wikipedia. As I understand, the thing is that if user Abcdef has made six contributions, how to make sure that user is properly credited for those contributions even if they are renamed to Abcdef2. I think this requirement is satisfied if, on a relevant talk page, it is mentioned that the edits made by Abcdef before xx.yy.2012 were made by the user currently known as Abcdef2. --Jmkfi (Diskussion) 13:13, 23. Mai 2012 (CEST)

(For what it's worth, I posted a proposal to Wikipedia Diskussion:Benutzernamen ändern/Benutzernamens-Übernahme. But if a formal poll is needed, I'm afraid that's beyond my abilities.) --Jmkfi (Diskussion) 13:16, 23. Mai 2012 (CEST)

I could help setting up the poll (I've been thinking about it for a long time, but actually for me it has always been to insignificant to really start it), if you contribute a list of usurpation rules in other wikipedias. … «« Man77 »» 13:25, 24. Mai 2012 (CEST)

Alleged Polish "Devise" before the WWII

According to Polenfeldzug, Polnische Pläne: "Die Devise lautete Marsz na Berlin! Marsz na Berlin! („Auf, gegen Berlin!“)". The article doesn't inform who defined the Wahlspruch (see the definition of Wahlspuch "Solche Mottos werden meist nicht, wie Parolen, mündlich geäußert, sondern schriftlich und stammen entweder aus langen Traditionen oder aber aus entscheidenden Ereignissen, wie aus einem Bürgerkrieg oder einer Revolution.") The quoted source is a book by Polish writer and poet Lesław M. Bartelski, not an academic source. The book isn't available to check the context. Xx234 (Diskussion) 14:42, 16. Jul. 2012 (CEST) The article doesn't contain any German Devise of that time. So only bad Poles had an anti-German Devise, the good Germans didn't have any anti-Polish one. The article quotes a book Größte Härte ... but doesn't inform who said the words (Adolf Hitler to Wehrmacht generals).Xx234 (Diskussion) 07:47, 17. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

I removed the phrase. --(Saint)-Louis (Diskussion) 17:57, 18. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Thank you.Xx234 (Diskussion) 08:39, 20. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Reichsuniversität Posen was Nazi

The article Reichsuniversität Posen describes the Reichsuniversität Posen as a standard university. The only two sources of the article written by Teresa Wróblewska ("Modelle nationalsozialistischer Hochschulen", "Die Rolle und Aufgaben einer nationalsozialistischen Universität ") are obviously selectively quoted (or misquoted). Neither this article nor Adam-Mickiewicz-Universität Posen inform about killings of Polish professors. "Die Reichsuniversität trat an die Stelle der polnischen Universität" - in another words: nothing happend. Xx234 (Diskussion) 14:54, 16. Jul. 2012 (CEST) There was no Piasten-Universität in 1939, as the article misinforms.Xx234 (Diskussion) 07:58, 17. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Do you have names of executed professors. So far, I found Edward Klich, professor for Slavic studies (source: Helmut Wilhelm Schaller: Die "Reichsuniversität Posen" 1941-1945: Vorgeschichte, Nationalsozialistische Gründung, Widerstand und Polnischer Neubeginn (Symbolae Slavicae 29), Frankfurt am Main 2010, S. 89.) --(Saint)-Louis (Diskussion) 15:09, 18. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

pl:Stanisław Pawłowski (geograf)Xx234 (Diskussion) 14:22, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

pl:Romuald Paczkowski Xx234 (Diskussion) 14:25, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Franciszek Raszeja Xx234 (Diskussion) 14:33, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

pl:Michał Sobeski died in a German camp.Xx234 (Diskussion) 14:52, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

pl:Stanisław Kalandyk Xx234 (Diskussion) 14:54, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

NS-Propaganda against Poland seems to not exist

Compare Polnische Kultur im Zweiten Weltkrieg and en:Themes in Nazi propaganda. NS-Propaganda isn't a part of Polnische Kultur so it should be described in NS-Propaganda. Heimkehr (1941) says - Heimkehr ist ein deutscher anti-polnischer Propagandafilm. But you have to know the movie to find this statement, NS-Propaganda doesn't inform about it. Xx234 (Diskussion) 15:07, 16. Jul. 2012 (CEST) Propagandafilm describes the Heimkehr as a Kriegspropagandafilm. See also [1].Xx234 (Diskussion) 15:33, 16. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Czesc Xx234, Polnische Kultur im Zweiten Weltkrieg#Zerstörung polnischer Kultur (destruction of Polish culture) deals extensively with anti-polish cultural policies during the Nazi occupation. The section is embedded in a broader article about polish culture during war which has another section on the underground culture in that time. I think, it is fitting to deal with both topics in one article since occupational policies and underground culture are related to each other. Obviously, there is still a lot of work to be done, as can be seen from the numerous red links in the article. --(Saint)-Louis (Diskussion) 14:34, 18. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

We also have Deutsche Besetzung Polens 1939–1945 which deals with the more political topics during the occupation. --(Saint)-Louis (Diskussion) 14:58, 18. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

1.The articles you quote don't discuss the pre-war NS anti-Polish propaganda, before the occupation started.

2.The article NS-Propaganda doesn't link the articles you mention, which makes it incomplete.Xx234 (Diskussion) 15:02, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Why don´t you voice your criticisms on the article discussion instead? It is not forbidden to use English there and it would be easier for the authors to find. Just a suggestion... --Prüm 17:13, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

I had voiced and was told - do it yuourself. But my German isn't good enough so the situation doesn't change. I have just written two remarks in English.Xx234 (Diskussion) 08:44, 20. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Władysław Szpilman

The article misinforms describing the war period. Wilm Hosenfeld article ignores the context of his help to Władysław Szpilman. Xx234 (Diskussion) 08:11, 17. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Although the articles are a bit weak when it comes to describing to events during the war, they both mention the fact that Hosenfeld helped Szpilman. --(Saint)-Louis (Diskussion) 14:54, 18. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Im Warschauer Ghetto überlebte er - it sais that Władysław Szpilman surived in the ghetto till 1945, obviously false.Xx234 (Diskussion) 14:58, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

It says: He survived the Getto as the only member of his family because of the help of Hosenfeld. Maybe you misunderstood it.. --(Saint)-Louis (Diskussion) 15:02, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

I understand that the article doesn't describe Szpilman's fate ouside the ghetto. BTW Hosenfeld didn't help Szpilman in the ghetto.Xx234 (Diskussion) 15:04, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

5.437 of German victims in Polenfeldzug

The number comes directly from Nazi propaganda.Xx234 (Diskussion) 13:06, 18. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

According to the article, the Nazi propaganda gave a number ten times higher. The 5.437 number is properly sourced. --(Saint)-Louis (Diskussion) 14:39, 18. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

According to reality the number comes from Nazi propaganda (Die Dokumentensammlung des Auswärtigen Amtes (Weißbuch Nr. 1)) and was later multiplied by ten.Xx234 (Diskussion) 14:19, 19. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

There exist several estimates, even Feldgrau.net presents several numbers: http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=23751. Xx234 (Diskussion) 07:53, 20. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

The same subject is discussed in Bromberger Blutsonntag, where the number 5437 is assigned to Nazi propaganda. Is it rational to discuss the same problem independently in two articles? Xx234 (Diskussion) 11:36, 26. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Reichsuniversität Straßburg

The article almost informs about murdered Jews - there is a French language table, no translation, the caption says "Gedenktafel für die Opfer von August Hirt am Institut für Anatomieforschung" - which "Opfer"? One has to go to August Hirt to understand. Xx234 (Diskussion) 13:59, 26. Jul. 2012 (CEST)

Abenteuer - Tour

Für meine Reise von Regensburg nach Ulan Bator in 45 Tagen, suche ich noch einen Fotografen. Wer hat Lust?--AttilaPereghy (Diskussion) 10:58, 22. Aug. 2012 (CEST)

it.wiki in trouble, once again, this time is worse than last year

Hi, this is just to let you know that the dangerous law that wasn't issued last year, when we blacked-out the site, is once again under discussion at the Italian Senate. This time things seem to be much much worse than one year ago. The act is now harder and contains many more obligations, so many and so dangerous that no sysops would work at such conditions because it would definitely be too risky. Very few among our users would go on editing BLPs or "spicy" topics any more because it could be very costly: up to 100,000 euros! And any legalised troll saying that something in our articles disturbs him, would be entitled to request an addition (inside the article) which actually we are not going to accept because the troll is not required to be honest and tell the truth, any liar would be legally welcomed and we couldn't even comment... (I'm not kidding, it's incredible but true...)
Moreover, this time the approval could more probably be forced by the so-called technical government (headed by Mr. Monti), and all the bigger Italian parties toghether (Berlusconians hands in hands with former communists - both had separately tried to enforce such an act before) are working for strengthening the act. So, this time we need a critical help from anyone, we need it now because the scheduled vote on next Monday could be the last time we can freely work on it.wiki. We need it strong because main Italian media are simply ignoring our protest, and we can't read any news about it outside the web.
So, please, please, please, do whatever you can in order to avoid at least that this can happen in a complete silence. Inform your deputy, call the closest Italian embassy, spam your papers and/or our Senators (open individual files for addresses), use your fantasy and do whatever you think might be strongly helpful in protecting Wikipedia, starting from spreading the news across the WikiWorld.
Any little thing you can do will be vitally important for it.wiki.
Thank you in advance --g (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In Germany, we are probably more relaxed about such laws. We have such a law since 1874 and so far it didn't cause too many problems. Could you please link to the actual text of the law? --(Saint)-Louis (Diskussion) 02:25, 27. Okt. 2012 (CEST)