User talk:Ruhrjung

Welcome to Wikipedia! Keep up the good work. -- Mic

Thanks! (We'll see. I think I'm rather stubborn, when it comes to continuing on projects. Expect to see me here regularly as in several times a month, not regularly as in every day or even every week.) -- Ruhrjung 08:30 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting on the Baltic dimension at Väinö I of Finland. I've been away for the most of June and I haven't been able to follow developments, but I'm sure you've done alot of good contributions. -- Mic 13:07 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ireland and WWII neutrality

Many people presume Irish neutrality was not being willing to take sides in the war. It was much more complicated. In fact recent scholarship has questioned whether Ireland was neutral at all. In many areas, it was a figleaf to avoid destabilising the Irish state through triggering off an IRA campaign (The IRA would have reacted badly to any open support for Britain); the IRA had links with the nazis and any destablisation would have made it easier for Germany to invade, at a time when no-one else could have protected Ireland because Britain was fighting for its survival, France was gone, the US wasn't involved at the time, etc. But it was a fiction. Ireland supplied tens of thousands of soldiers to the British army from the island, and vast numbers from the Irish community in Britain. IRA men were executed. British pilots that crashed in Ireland were chased very very slowly, ie pretending to catch them while giving them plenty of time to get to Northern Ireland (sometimes police gave them directions!). But German airmen were interned immediately. Ireland facilitated the bugging of the German embassy by the British, the Irish Intelligence services secretly briefed the British with information. Weather reports which both sides needed were denied offically to both, then secretly supplied to the Allies, as was every scrap of information Irish diplomats could get their hands on in Berlin and Rome.

Put simply, Ireland's neutrality was a practical solution aimed at making Ireland as difficult as possible for Germany to invade. It was in a different category to the neutrality practiced in many other neutral states. The mention I added in is a factual amendment to point out that the often believed impression that Ireland refused to aid the Allies against Germany is nonsense. Ireland could offer them little militarily but if invaded by Germany it could be used against Britain in a way that would make Britain's defence of itself almost impossible. Irish neutrality in effect gave the Allies far more than open support could have; maximum strength to reduce the threat of naxi invasion and crucial covert information, some of it (such as in effect spying on nazis under the cover of neutrality and weather forecasts about incoming Atlantic weather patterns crucial during the Battle of Britain and in planning D-Day, information denied to Germany which gave the Allies the edge at crucial turning points. FearÉIREANN 01:19 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, yes and yes. :-)) My thought is however, that it might be suitable to make an article of its own on the different deviations from strict neutrality and the impartial attitude toward the belligerents according to the conventions of the Second Hague Conference. If I as a reader had a choise, I would prefer to see Éire's, Sweden's and Switzerland's sensitive manoevres in the same context/on the same www-page.

What do you think? -- Ruhrjung 09:28 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The comma-convention and German cities

AFAIK The format of disambiguation of place names outside of the USA is still under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(city_names). I think you should enter the discussion before unilaterally deciding to move German place names. Mintguy 22:21, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Germany is no state of USA. That is established, even in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(city_names), where virtually no arguments for the comma-notion are presented, although the debate there seems to have fallen asleep (about July 22nd). --Ruhrjung

I understand and indeed agree with your position. However, such bold moves are usually made after some discussion and agreement or consensus and not unilaterally, and I don't recall seening you participating this particular one. Mintguy 22:41, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I most certainly did. Among other things asking for reasons why Frankfurt am Main should redirect to Frankfurt, and not the other way around (no-one found that question interesting, though I repeated it), ...but also in the common whine choir. And what are we supposed to do when the proponents of a questioned habit don't defend their position (at least not by arguments), but leave walk-over? I'm not in knowledgable enough to discuss conventions extending the few countries I know (France, Benelux, Germany, the so called "Old Europe", and maybe Scandinavia), let alone propose any general convention, which seemingly is the feeling of more than myself. If we are lucky, my boldness might lead to a revival of the discussion, or something.--Ruhrjung 23:21, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Mintguy, that you should not make further page moves. Now we have the situation of some cities in this format and some cities in the other format, which is the worst solution at all. Before your change ALL German cities were in the comma notion. I don't prefer one of these formats, but I am strongly in favour of uniformity. Maybe I will later revert your changes.

Moreover, why is Brunswick placed under Brunswick (Lower Saxony) and not Brunswick (Germany). We should prefer the name of the country, because in other countries it is more widely known than the federal state. Only if there were two cities of that name in Germany, I would agree with this change. Cheers -- Cordyph 10:08, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, the most true reason is (I believe) that I made that change first, and at that time was, beside heavily intoxicated, having the (finally) ~~ducal~~ grand-ducal dynasty von Braunschweig in my mind. For me, the city and the rulers residing there are connected to Saxony, not to Germany. You are of course free to do whatever changes and revertions you like. If you think the wikipedia-project is more served by "uniformity" treating Germany as an entity comparable with the states of USA and Australia, well... please, have your ways. But don't complain if the credibility of the project is harmed outside of USA.--Ruhrjung 11:40, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

When I said uniformity, I meant, that at least all entries within Germany should be in the same format. That may be different from the format used for U.S. states, but changing some random articles from comma notion to parantheses and leave the rest as is, that is for sure a bad idea. If at all, we should have discussed this first on the mailing list or another place, and then we might go ahead and change all articles. What this has to do with the credibility of project - well, I don't know.
And if we state a geographical entity where a city belongs to, it should of course be the current country and not a medieval duchy. Excuse me, but your explanation about the page move to Brunswick (Lower Saxony) is rather odd. -- Cordyph 14:13, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I never said I had any good explanation, did I? :-) However, also you, my friend, seem to need a brief repetition of our history. "Medieval" ... tsk, tsk. :-)) Anyway, I was under the belief that I tracked down all (six-or-something) German towns with the comma-disambiguation in the page-name. Don't tell me I left some behind?
;->
--Ruhrjung 06:21, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Continuation War

What do you think we should do with this? It seems that Graculus ans 172 are not going to defend their version. I don't want to revert the article if it just gets reverted back. Should we wait a couple of days and then revert the article to one of the versions we see as NPOV? I also wanted you know that I found Graculus behaviour very offending. -- Jniemenmaa 09:19, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

I've noticed the debate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship which, to express it mildly, did nothing to improved my impression. To some degree, more than I actually would like to admit, do User:Eloquence's, cimon's and User:172's (see also: the talk page) arguments make me disappointed. It ought not to be the slightest relevant if someone participates in an edit war, or not, but the ways of war: the propagandist slant (or as they say so much these days, the spin) and the disrespect for other contributors - and for Truth, for heaven's sake!

Sorry to butt in when you were going at such free flow ;-) But, But but...

Everything you say about Graculus'es style above, is in my view justified (I am not saying it is right, but it certainly is justified). What we may disagree upon (but perhaps agree to disagree upon), is the question of what is appropriate to the case of sysophood approval. I hope Truth will not take offence, if I claim that she has no say in the matter of how people pursue her. And the Wikipedia should not do so either; to the point that Wikipedia should not discriminate by style, but by hard and deliberate demonstrable acts. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick

Exactly. We agree to disagree. And I expect people, who agree with you, will be more likely to remain active within this project than people who have a view related to mine. Nothing thereby said about numbers.--Ruhrjung 13:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is quite ambiguously put. Are you saying that there may be good numbers of those who do not wish to participate in this site if we require more than an isolated incident before stopping people from joining the group of sysops. If that is indeed true in large numbers, I haven't heard many who have expressed that view, before you seem to be suggesting it here now. Maybe I have misunderstood something, in which case, please elucidate. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 17:19, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

No. I am specifically avoiding to say anything about numbers. For two reasons: 1/ I have not the faintest knowledge. 2/ I believe numbers being less important than whom is repulsed and attracted by a wikipedia where your opinion rules. Don't forget that the nominee in question is pretty fresh around here. By saying "his demonstrated bias and his ways to pursue his POV is 'an isolated incident' limited to only few articles" I think one in practice, although not expressively, endorses his and similar techniques. This might turn the wikipedia project a bit more in direction of a battle ground where the law of the jungle rules, and it might in the long run repulse factually competent contributors. Such a process is possibly self-amplifying.

I had been less surpriced if Eloquence had argued: "this incident motivates a/ some waiting time, so that we can see that it's not a habit and b/ a somewhat closer look on the nominee's other actions," which would have sent a signal to both the nominee in question but also to other confrontative users, that their methods are not generally considered optimal.

I would also like to point out that when people propose and support nominees at that page, then their arguments for nominees are very much about qualities which this nominee in this particular case demonstrated deficient. So I do not feel detached from the rethoric in general, only by your stance which I incisivedly read as: Let's give him authority and powers, and boost his standing. First thereafter we can determine if he'll abuse it or not. ...or, errr, if the negative aspects weigh heavier than his valuable work as a sysop. But I think there are many reasons why it's easier not to grant honors and privileges than to revoke them. --Ruhrjung 09:28, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ruhrjung, I totally agree with you. Actually this whole thing bothered me more than it should have. Wonder who has been doing all the "pointless bickering and politicking"? Not you or Tuomas at least. -- Jniemenmaa

I don't really understand how my one edit and one reversion (nor Tuomas' repeated reversion and single rewrite) can have produced the strong feelings expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Graculus and User Talk:Graculus#Continuation War.--Ruhrjung 13:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Honestly - I do care, but I don't know what to say or to propose. In my own personal self-view, my role has been to balance you Finns and your natural and understandable tendency to stress a Finnish POV (not that I believe there to be only one Finnish POV, of course not! ;->>). Now, User:Graculus has done his best to "balance" it, and hence outshone my role, but alas not being willing to discuss the issue. I thought I offered one attempt to work in some of his contributions in the text, while filtering away what I feared would trigger drastic Finish work-ups (sooner or later). User:Tuomas rewrote the introduction, improved it and addressed some of the "controversial" issues in a factual way. User:Graculus remained mute but stubborn.

I have a huge respect for Truth. - just for the record - What I have found out, though, is that Truth is a shy lady, she only comes out to play, if the players try to give each other much leeway in expressing themselves. It likes a stubborn viewpoint almost as much as a volatile one. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 18:45, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

Your lines look nice. Beautifully poetic prose! My only problem is that I have no idea what you actually are aiming at.--Ruhrjung 13:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's good that I do know then! Just doing my best to get a hand under her skirts, and cop a good feel up her source. What I am saying (in plain) is that if restrictions are designed purely by either rhetoric/linguistic ability or (and I honestly think many people miss this, without consciously wanting to) their people skills. There is a good line about this in both the Hagakure and in Confucius' Analects, but I can't be bothered to dig either up right now. Maybe after I save this... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 17:19, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

No offence, but... "if restrictions are designed purely by either language ability or their people skills." ...then? It's not the quotation I ask for, it's the meaning. :-) --Ruhrjung 09:28, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hokay, how about a quote from Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick: "If you elect only politicians to power, then the politicians will have power." Personally I dislike rule by elite in every form, and sysophood becoming a political office is to my view a much worse prospect than letting a few broken vessels squeak through. And I disagree with the contention that Graculus' actions were quite as severely deficient as you and Tuomas seem to think; which is quite understandable, since you two were emotionally committed to oppose him. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 10:29, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

Ha! I've been itching to NPOV (or should I say Finn-POV) your stuff on Finnish history for a while... :) I know that I have an Finnish POV for the war, but it is a lot closer to "your version" that Graculus'. But since I am more of an wargaming buff, so I'd rather do articles on the individual battles of the war. -- Jniemenmaa

The way my personality normally works is:

I've made my attempts now. They weren't approved. Well. That's OK. Let someone else try.

I'm currently reading up on Swedish Social Democrats (memoirs and biographies). Much more interesting than engaging in "wars" with people who refuse to communicate. There are two aspects of "Swedishness" which I slowly begin to get some sort of a grip of: Folkrörelserna and the hegemony of Social Democracy. It's been intriguing but strange to me - it still is - but I begin to understand one thing or another.

...Swedish collectivism for instance. A few days ago I met a 70-ish man at a skördefest in a village just outside of Malmö and Lund, who argued that the statarsystem and the bruksorter had been over-all good for many of the employees. He had himself grown up as a statarunge until 1944, when the system was abolished and his father was given the choice between becoming a leaseholder or season-employee. He, the son I met, ment that for many/most of the statare that system ment stability, community and security which they missed in their new roles as urbanized industrial workers or tenant-farmers. Compared to Finnish mentality and Finnish national myths, this is definitely something else. The Swedes as the archetypic village dwellers, much similar to how my great-aunt remembers her childhood in East-Prussia.
--Ruhrjung 17:41, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I must confess I have an hole in my knowledge of Swedish history approximately between 1809 and 1980. I'll be waiting for your article(s) on the subject.. :) For the moment I'am interested about Finnish pre-history and medieval history, so I won't be interested in an "edit war" either. Ok, I've never been interested in edit wars anyway. I am more happy with writing new articles (and seeing them improved by others!). -- Jniemenmaa 08:55, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

Don't expect too much. I must say that although over a million immigrants live in Sweden, and must have made similar experiences as I (and you), I can't consider the issue sufficiently interesting for any broader international forum. I was rather intending to give the impression that I read things which are unrelated to Wikipedia. ;->> --Ruhrjung 13:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

illustration on divisions of Christianity

I actually know very little about christianity. I just converted the ascii-art to a jpg. I'm not even christian. LDan 00:33, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's OK. I don't think you need to know anything in order to make an illustration... ;-))) Think of the denominations as the results of the forkings, and that which is not results, that must then be the causes of the forkings (as the Reformation, for instance).--Ruhrjung 01:08, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sysop nomination

I was just looking over your contributions, and you're a great contributor. Would you like to be a sysop? I haven't filed any of the official requests yet, but if you want to be a sysop, you'd probably be accepted. LDan 00:45, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thankyou, but no thanks. :-)
I am sufficiently much of an wikiholic without such a bold move.
--Ruhrjung 01:08, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Holy Roman Empire, sovereignty and suzeranity

sovereignty as we meen it now and sovereignty 'independence' as meant the are not the same thing. Suzeranity on the one hand, landeshoheit on the other. Much of Prussia wasnt part of the empire - habsburg lands in the the empire werent subject to any will of the emperor (usually a hapsburg unless for reasons of the specific feudal obligations of the land in question except when regarding the emperor's most basic funftions - which wasnt to be absolute lord and master. The Holy Roman Empire should be thought of as an internetional treaty organisation or corporation in which the emperor was the chairman of the board, not divine right monarchy. In other words, i mean that those territorities did ahve unabhangigkeit, landeshoheit and landesherrlicheit - independence even part in the Empire.
User:Tridesch

Nope, they achieved this during the course of the history, at the same time as the development in other important international powers was the opposite.
--Ruhrjung 06:14, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, sorry - youre wrong for the era you were referring to. By the Napoleonic Era, these states were perfectly free to do whatever they wished and the larger ones - did. Every state was technically independent under the suzeranity of the emperor. These concepts dont correspond w how modern states work. This was my concentration in college.
User:Tridesch

For the Napoleonic Era you are perfectly right, but please direct me to which article we are currently discussing.
--Ruhrjung 07:07, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pronounciation guides

Why are you trying to get pronounciation guides added to some pages? Most people I know outside academia run a mile from them because the vast majority of people find them gobbledigook. Wikipedia lacks a universal standard of experience of their usage because of the varying expertise in english among users, and is potentially read by people in international locations who have never seen them, do not understand them and do not have the sort of grasp of subtities of pronounciation to make head or tail of them. Please just use simple linguistic guides that everyone can follow, rather than guides that are of use to only a small minority of linguists.
FearÉIREANN 19:48, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My wish would be to get rid of the gobbledigook of transcriptions to English, except of course for the cases when these are regularly used. I made a comment on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
--Ruhrjung 06:55, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Lists of queers vs racist lists (VfD)

Hi, I'm curious to know a bit more about your votes on VfD. Under "queer composers" you said "Keep", but under "caucasians" you said "Racism warning! Delete". You seem to be saying that listing people by race is automatically a bad thing, but listing people by sex is not. Why is that? Have I just misunderstood you?

For the record, I've now formed the opinion that all these lists are a waste of time, and what we actually need is searchability. I won't bother voting to delete them, though, just wait for them to become obsolete.
Onebyone 17:06, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Let me start by asserting that I dislike, personally, the wiki-habit of lots of lists of this and that. But I can, imho, not make this my dislike a reason to vote for deletion. However, if I try to presure myself on honesty, it's probably so that I watch request for deletions of lists more closely and benevolently than other requests for deletions. Hence my notice that I to my own surprise found me being voting in favor of a list.

Yes, I say that (on wikipedia) listing people by race is a dangerous road (i.e. a bad thing). Listing people by sex is not the issue here, but by acknoledged or believed unconventional sexual preferences. I might have my doubts on some of the posts on these lists, but that's totally irrelevant for VfD.

I consider racism a danger, in particular for the wikipedia. But I do not consider prejudices and selective data compilations on sexual preferences harmful for wikipedia, at least not for the moment; furthermore: I hold for relevant and interesing the debate on a possible relation between extraordinary contributions to science, arts, etc, and attitudes of exclusiveness among many of these extraordinary contributors, which might explain why many of them seemingly are less bound by conventional moral norms.
--Ruhrjung 17:36, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oops, my original question wasn't quite right. I meant to say "by sexual preference" rather than "by sex". It doesn't seem to have confused you, though.

I don't agree that listing by race necessarily poses any danger of racism, or that racism is more dangerous (in this context) than prejudice based on sexuality. But your votes certainly make sense to me now, so thanks for taking the time to answer.
Onebyone 09:44, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Ruhrjung. I looked at all the pages listed in that section of the disputes page. Posnan was already protected before I got your message. I have now protected Teschen as well. Silesia's been protected for a while. I haven't protected the others as they are not currently in an edit war and I don't like to portect pages just in case they are attacked. Wroclaw has only had 1 edit in the last 30 hours. Prussia's only had 1 edit in 2 days. Szczecin and Pomerania haven't been edited since the 22nd. Gdansk hasn't been edited since the 20th and Polish Corridor hasn't been edited for 35 hours. So these seem comparatively stable for now. Angela 06:49, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks!
--Ruhrjung 06:52, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mäntsälä Rebellion

Hi! You changed some of the links pointing to the Mäntsälä rebellion article to Mäntsälä Rebellion. Were you going to move the article there? I made it into a redirect for now. -- Jniemenmaa 20:17, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You managed to write the article before I found that out. I saw it as a red link. But anyhow. I believe the capital character is correct. But I agree that English rules for capitalization are tricky. Maybe better ask someone who knows?
--Ruhrjung 20:33, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please be careful with your "English for runaways". You should have learned from your "marionette regime". "Balticum" is likewise not used in English. --Wik 08:00, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi Ruhrjung, I am glad to see that you apparently returned after your long time-out. Wik was temporarily banned last night, and I hope that a permanent ban will follow. I hope to see you around soon. (I will now delete your name from Missing Wikipedians ;-) ) -- Baldhur 07:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! ;-)
I don't know about the future.
There were a few too many encounters of wikipedians who were more keen on hasty revertions than on checking facts or considering their view of reality possibly being incomplete. Schlesien/Danzig disputes were adding up. Some users and some topics would be easy to avoid, but others seem omnipresent.

-(

--Ruhrjung 08:22, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thorvald Stauning and the Udenrigsministeriet web site

At http://www.um.dk/english/danmark/danmarksbog/kap6/6-23-2-5.asp, there are several sentences very similar (in information, order of presentation, and some text) to some that you added to the entry here on Thorvald Stauning. I know very little about the FDL (whether they could take your text without notice), copyright law (whether paraphrasing a copyrighted sentence and incorporating it in a larger work is okay), Wikipedia policy, or the circumstances of your research (whether you asked for permission), and I would love to know about all of these things. But the main reason I mention my observation is that the similar sentence is awkward. It does not, as William Strunk, Jr. put it in The Elements of Style (rule 15), Express co-ordinate ideas in similar form. To say from x to y he did z and in a-b he did c is confusing and makes a reader pause.

I would appreciate anything you could tell me about how to start using Wikipedia well (I just got my account today), especially for fixing nitpicks like this one. Thanks.
-- Jrn 03:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's too long ago that I wrote on the Stauning article for me to be sure, but I believe your suspicion to be correct. It's highly probable that I did cut-and-paste whole whole sentences. I do so sometimes, with the purpose of re-using English language constructions which are more elaborate than I trust myself being able to put together without plenty of idiomatic and grammatical errors.

Luckily, other wikipedians often spot my faulty English and correct it.

--Ruhrjung 03:44, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung. Yikes! I had no idea such a straightforward statement was so contentious. As the sentence was phrased when I came across it, it was barely comprehensible. I tried to make it as standard as possible without changing the meaning (so far as I can tell). I have no interest in getting involved in a political debate, and I have no future plans to edit the Åland article.

That's the problem. People with Swedish mother tongue try to agree with people with Finnish mother tongue on compromise wordings in English. The result is often barely comprehensible. Please, why don't you make one more attempt to get the first paragraphs readable?--Ruhrjung 16:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't want to get into a controversy, but we work collaboratively here. I just tried to improve the readabilty of the first paragraphs of the history section. They're now much closer to standard English; I'll let you make sure the facts are presented accurately. -- Seth Ilys

Just so you, someone with more knowledge of the subject, can improve it... the current sentence: " The issue was important not only for Sweden but for Great Britain, whose trade in the Baltic was threatened, why the islands were demilitarized following the Crimean War." makes absolutely no sense in standard English. I can't make out what it means at all (and therefore, I have no suggestions as to how to improve it... -- Seth Ilys 16:30, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The control of Åland, situated at the mouth of Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Bothnia, was important for sea trade. For Britain, for Russia and for Sweden (Prussia and the Dutch were not really in this game at this time).
Britain's improved situation after the successful Crimean War made it possible to roll back Russia's strength in the Baltic Sea. The demilitarization of Åland was a means. That was of course also valuable for Sweden - both for admirals and for commerce.

--Ruhrjung 16:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On Communists in the Winter War

I've moved your comments to the Talk:Winter War page Lefty 19:37, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)

OOPS!

In an unpardonable oversight, I forgot to welcome you back. Allow me to correct my faux pas. I welcome you back most heartily. BTW what do you think about the job Bryan Derksen did on Continuation War? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 11:39, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. The Continuation War article seems to be, basically, restored to a pre-Graculus version. The addition of weasel-expressions is not really to my fancy, but... You can see what I might have wished to do with the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Ruhrjung/Continuation_War&action=history

--Ruhrjung 07:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Baltic ports

The table is already in one place. What I wanted to ensure, is that it has separated chapter. #1 it is importants #2 because I added some links that point to this specific chapter. 1 000 000 number for Tricity is explained on the Polish Tricity page. You will find exactly what was calculated. Cautious 14:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You could have brought the issue to the talk page. This and similar incidents are unfortunately good at curbing wikipedia contributors' interest - not only mine. -- Ruhrjung 14:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

germany

You wrote: "Between 1953 and 1991 the government was the West German government"

Not correct. There was never a state called "West Germany". The Federal Republic of Germany was and is the Federal Republic of Germany. The only thing that happened in 1990, was that the previously Soviet-occupied territory of DDR was annexed by Germany. It is the same state.
Nico 09:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Nico (and I'm not ironic!), (what's your first language, by the way? Although I hold on to the principle that communication on en.wikipedia.org ought to be in English, one can sometimes know better how to express oneself, and sometimes understand better how one might be perceived, if one knows what language the other part associates in.)

We might differ slightly on this point. (My opinion is that neither of the Germanys were fully souvereign before 1991.) But that is of lesser relevance, since we have to keep in mind that the ordinary English language reader (of the BdV article) is not knowing or interested or receptive of this issue. For an ordinary reader, there did exist two Germanys during the Cold War.

Remember that google ranks wikipedia high. Hence the article must be written with the unknowing www-surfer in mind. The purpose of the BdV-article is not to dispute the status of East Germany, but to inform about BdV. That work is done in vain if the prose of the first sentences is not comparably inviting, or if the article gives an anyhow unreliable impression. And here we come to your wording "the federal German government". The reader has seen the years 194x-1991, and might expect to find a reference to either West- or East-Germany. When the reader instead finds the word federal there, which rather would belong in a US or Australian context, resistance is introduced in the reader's taking in of the message, and the reader is less prone to believe the text to be "correct", "authoritative" and "in accordance with what is right and what 'we all know'". This is totally unneccessary. And in this very case also easy to avoid.

The discussion on the status of BRD and DDR belongs in an article whose subject is exactly that, but in the context of the BdV article, it is of peripherial interest, unless it's needed to explain the actual meaning of a quotation.

regards!
Ruhrjung 09:46, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

population transfer

Can you understand how your preference for the therm population transfer instead of ethnic cleansing may be considered offensive by the persons affected (and, secondarily, by their younger relatives)?

Is your ambition to provoke people into supporting Nico?
--Ruhrjung 17:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No I don't understand. My own mother and her whole family were victims of your "ethnic cleansing" and to me or my mom the term population transfer MAY NOT be considered offensive. Ethnic cleansing took place during WW II. Population transfer was a best way they could think of, after the war, to avoid another ethnic cleansing in the future.

My ambition is to use common sense, follow my conscience and be very self critical.
Regards
Space Cadet 17:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

May I ask if you consider ethnic cleansing to be synonymous with population transfer? If not, what's the difference? From what you write above, one could get the impression that transfer was done by you and cleansing by your adversaries. Then it would boil down to the question whether "you" or "your adversaries" were to be granted right of expression on wikipedia.

Anyway, I got an answer on my question. You do not understand that you might be perceived as offensive. I'll have to think over that.

(BTW, you're obviously my elder. My mother was born after the war. My great-aunt, however, worked in Wroclaw (as we know, then called Breslau) til the end. She basically refuses to speak of the last years of the war, and the rest of the 1940s, but I believe her view to be that ethnic Germans, particularly on the countryside, were subjects of terror aimed at forcing them to leave "volountarily", and that this in most cases had nothing with the individuals' prior actions to do, but solely with their ethnicity.)
--Ruhrjung 18:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again: "Ethnic cleansing took place during WW II. Population transfer was a best way they could think of, after the war, to avoid another ethnic cleansing in the future".

Responsible for ethnic cleansing: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia. Responsible for population transfer: Allied Powers at Potsdam Conference. Me - I did not transfer anybody. My adversaries - biased people.

You don't neccessarily have to be that individualistic. I ment your as in wasi, not twoi.

...and it doesn't answer my question.--Ruhrjung 19:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do understand that I can be perceived as a lot of different things by "my adversaries", no matter what I say.

How do you think you would be perceived if you let the term ethnic cleansing remain?--Ruhrjung 19:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

About Your grandma - with all respect to suffering of others, ask her if she would have rather been Polish during Nazi occupation, and then for forty five years of communist terror.

Space Cadet 18:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding my grand-aunt (her sister, my grand-mother, is dead), I know that she had rather been Polish after the Nazi-occupation. I also know that her Polish was quite fluent, although accented, still 50 years after the war, which showed when I had a Polish lover. They clearly enjoyed chatting together in Polish. I also know, that she most definitely did not feel to have suffered more than anyone else, nor that Germans suffered anyhow "more" than others, only that mentioning the German suffers have/had been supressed – to some degree maybe comparable with how the industrial killing of the whole Jewry overshadowed the considerable suffereings inflicted on Slavonics everywhere the Nazis were in charge. (Don't now interpret this as an attempt to villify only the Nazis for German bullying of Poles.)

And, No, I'm not going to question her. The answer is obvious, and it would only be disrespectful and inconsiderate.
--Ruhrjung 19:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not necessary your elder. I was a late child, kind of a surprise to everybody. Cadet

:-)

--Ruhrjung 19:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I get it! When I wrote <your "ethnic cleansing">, you thought I meant "yours and your people's". No! I meant that my mother fell victim to, WHAT YOU LIKE TO REFER TO AS "ethnic cleansing". In other words she got expelled from Lwow when she was 7. If I let the term remain I would be perceived as someone who either doesn't care or has no idea what's being discussed. Cadet

The ethnic cleansing of the Germans is listed as an example of ethnic cleansing in the article dealing with the issue. Anyway, as for West/"East" Germany, your arguments makes sense, Ruhrjung. (jeg ville iøvrigt formode, at du taler dansk? Svenska går ochså, även om det inte är mitt modersmål) -- Nico 09:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on the Weimar Republic issue. PMA 14:19, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Freedom of sock-puppets

Hi Ruhrjung, long time no see - but it feels good to have you around :) On Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship you wrote: I think institutionalizing sock-puppets is a particularly bad idea. Although... quite another thing would have been if all sysop-accounts and bureaucrat-accounts as a rule were separate from the officer's ordinary account. I could see a meaning in the distinction between a Angela account and the Angela (admin) account. I believe that this is an interesting thought experiment. One must assume that many Wikipedians, and quite probably several sysops have not disclosed their sock puppet accounts (see for a possible example User:Louis_Kyu_Won_Ryu who was quite probably an experienced Wikipedian), but it remains unknown how many actually split their identity into sysop and ordinary accounts. It would be interesting to explore whether identity splitting could be put to any beneficial use. I have (although rarely) edited articles anonymously just to get rid of the self-imposed ideas and ideals of my Wikipedia persona, and that gave me a pleasant, newbie-ish feeling of freedom, and perhaps even a greater freedom of thought or expression. Which leads me to believe that editing under a different identity may be helpful in some cases. I have no idea what others think about this - the idea of encouraging personality splits might very well be seen as a kind of slippery slope. What do you think? Cheers, Kosebamse 00:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I, quite honestly, don't know for sure!

But one of my ideas is that the impressive value of a sysop action would increase if it was obvious when a sysop acted in that capacity ("ex cathedra") :-)

...and also that it would be easier for both other administrators and for the common people to differentiate between controversial edits done in the role as common wikipedian and (maybe) controversial actions carried out as sysop or buraucrat.

Regarding freedom, I think the issue is double-edged, at least!
--Ruhrjung 00:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't remember what I said about Austria or where I said it.

You ask

What is, for instance, the established view on the "Germans" in South Tyrol? Are they "ethnic Austrians" maybe?

I think the most common usage is to call them ethnic Germans, or the German-speaking minority. I have never seen them referred to as "ethnic Austrians." I think the common view is that "Austrian" referes to a nationality not an ethnicity. German-speaking minorities in other countries will generally be called ethnic Germans unless they specifically call themselves something else - the German-speakers in Romania call themselves Saxons for example.

And the Danes in Schleswig-Holstein, are they Danish nationals or are they ethnic Danes?

They would be called ethnic Danes or the Danish-speaking minority.

I'm afraid my mindset is too much coloured by French and German discourse. I hold Bavarians to be of Bavarian nationality, like Austrians are of Austrian nationality, but all of them being of German ethnicity.

There hasn't been a Bavarian nationality in a legal sense since 1871, but I don't know what Bavarians now consider themselves to be. I agree that all German-speakers should generally be describes as being of German ethnicity unless they obviously are not. Adam 08:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there probably was a Bavarian nationality up to 1918 - the constituent states of the 2nd Reich maintained a certain degree of sovereignty, especially the big ones like Bavaria. My point in coming here, though, was to ask Ruhrjung why he edited the Prussia article in such a manner as to decrease comprehensibility in English. I certainly mean no disrespect to editors for whom English is not a first language, but if that is the case, why make significant changes that largely serve to make articles more poorly written? john 08:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have already tidied up at Prussia, it's no big deal. Adam 09:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thank both of you!
--Ruhrjung 09:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Free state

probably. Shall do. Morwen 18:28, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

24 hour bans for edit wars

Hi Ruhrjung,

I've amended the proposal on 24 hour bans for edit wars. In short, the amendment calls for a quickpoll to take place before any such ban can be implemented. If you support this, I'd like you to add your vote in favor to the 24 hour ban vote, with the comment "with quickpolls".

I know that you'd like to see longer bans, but it is important for us to get a system in place first. I also believe longer bans should be handled by the arbitration commission.—Eloquence 22:13, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

I didn't mind you being there, but I have now set the room to invite only as I think it should be up to Tim and Perl who they want there. Please can you ask them if you want to be there for the next mediation. If there's anything you think could have been done differently, I would be interested in your feedback. Thanks. Angela . 19:19, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

I won't ask them. Most probably I won't be around, and in any case I do not believe it would make the situation any more safe for any of them.--Ruhrjung 19:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Imperial Germany was just a redirect to German Empire - that was my motivation for changing it. PMA 10:29, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Common Ruhrjung: I have German grandmother, my nanny said the Willy times were the best, I like some aspects of German culture and I hope will soon speak the fluent German. Yet, factual forgery in the common history makes me mad. Especially, that Polish side made a lot of effort to clean legends and myths, but there are people on German side that want to preserve their biased version of history. Nico and Helga should be banned! Cautious 16:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

You have been invited to join in mediation regarding placenames in Central Europe. Please accept or decline this request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation# English/Polish/German/Nazi names of the Polish cities . You may also indicate who, if anybody, you would like to act as your representative if you do not want to participate personally, as well as your preferences regarding the choice of mediator. Tuf-Kat 23:18, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

See talk page! My impression was, that we were just discussing more and more issues with the current version, when you restored one of the ancient one, that is full of factual errors. Please answer the issues I raised on the talk page in the chapter: real dispute! Cautious 12:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of course issues are discussed, but the version I restored had been unquestioned for several months. The issues discussed is according to my judgement mostly NPOV disputes rather than factual. They can, according to my view, become factual if one party insist on suppressing other parties' points of view instead of presenting them beside eachother. I think you harm wikipedia by extensive use warnings for inaccuracy.--Ruhrjung 13:16, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I remind you. This is list of factual problems.

8.1 Header
8.2 Ethnic Germans versus citziens of Germany.
8.3 Volksdeutsche
8.4 Some of Volksdeutsche were not ethnic Germans.
8.5 Siberia deportations
8.6 Evacuation, transfer, emigration
8.7 Numbers involved
8.8 Evacuation is included?

If somebody states, that 15 milions of Germans were expelled this is factual problem. If some states, that ethnic Germans were expelled, it is factual problem, since the basis for expulsion was having German citizenship. Factual dispute is the most apropriate description of what is wrong here. The fact, there we had had the factually wrong version of article for month without warning, it is question of wiki credibility. Cautious 13:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But if you make additions to the article instead of suppressing the point of view that you dislike, you'll isolate the extremists and gain support by the broad majority of wikipedians if and when they glance at the article. Instead of making hidden changes, like [[Volksdeutsche]] --> [[Volksdeutsche|German citizens]] you could write "Germans" with quotation marks in initial and compressed sentences as long as why quotation marks are used is made clear some sentences further down, for instance along the line [[BdV|expellee representatives]] assert not only [[citizen]]s of [[Nazi Germany]] to have been affected be these forced transfers, although [[your authority of choise]] argue that no [[ethnic Germans]] except for [[Third Reich]] citizens fell viktim the harsh fate.
--Ruhrjung 14:08, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anti-American sentiment

Thanks for the hint. I have moved the paragraph to the foreign policy section. I hope to add some detail to the section eventually. In my youth the US seemed to regard the Caribbean as its possession. I'd also like to add Mexico as an example to balance Canada. It just occurred to me that the US has invaded both its neighbours, but they have never invaded it (I think). And then there's Vietnam, which is not mentioned in the article, or wasn't when I first edited it. Trontonian 13:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gdynia

Ruhrjung, I don't understand your reverts. Current version gives German name and German re name from WW2. Why you need long discussion in the header, about which German name comes from where?? In addition, Gdynia is slavic name, and Gdingen is merely translation of it. This applied to fishing village of 900 inhabitants. I would understand you, if Gdingen was German city that went to Poland and so on. Can we argue over something, that makes more sense? Cautious 09:13, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe to have written it elsewhere, but I don't find it now. Anyway: The way it was expressed opened for the interpretation that the Gdingen name should have been a recent invention, which in the current inflamed state of affairs is less suitable, as it invites people who feel strongly for emphasizeing the long and proud German history to make edits ("corrections") which people who feel strongly for eradicating any sign and trace of pre-Nazi presence of Germans in turn would feel provoced to "counter-correct".
--Ruhrjung 13:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Valaam Monastery

My apologies if any of my changes introduced errors or obscurities; such was not my intent. I meant to clarify some unusual idioms and fix some minor grammatical mistakes; if I removed relevant material, changed the meaning substantially, or damaged the overall presentation of the article, then feel free to change or undo my edits. (But please keep the disambiguated Great Schism link; that was the reason I started editing the article in the first place.) --67.71.78.53 02:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course I will.

But do you consider "neighbourhood" and "East-Rome"/"West-Rome" unusual idioms? Then that has to be worded differently, for instance like "what would later become Finland" and similar clumsy constructs, which I am not too fond of (but who am I to have opinions on a foreign language?).
Thank you for your answer!
--Ruhrjung 02:43, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

"East-Rome" and "West-Rome" are rather unusual idioms, and I was concerned that the average English reader might not appreciate the meaning of East-Rome or the metonymy of both terms. (My solution wasn't much of an improvement, I now see.) Perhaps "Eastern Orthodoxy" and "Western Catholicism" would be the best terms, with links as necessary.

Neighbourhood is a bit colloquial for my (pedantic) tastes; "region", "land", and "area" all retain the same meaning, but have a slightly more formal tone. HTH --67.71.78.53 02:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hans Rudel

Thanks for the note. Not a particular interest of mine either. Yes, I get most of my edit candidates from Recent Changes, and VfD (like making Max Baer a reasonable stub), then Random Page, or sometimes Cleanup. Occasionally I'll write something I know about, like SAM-e or Subaru (Loyale, Brat, Outback). Other times I just stumble across something I know little about, but think it should be covered, and do a little research, like for ticker tape. Niteowlneils 01:37, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Prussia

"Prussia was and is southwest of Russia proper"? Firstly Prussia cannot be spoken of in the present tense since it has not existed since 1947. Secondly southwest of Russia proper is (according to my atlas) Ukraine and the Balkans. Kaliningrad is almost due west of Moscow. Adam 08:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, well, until the soil is drenched by the Baltic Sea I believe I'll continue to think that the soil in question remains where it has always been. You have to take into account that I try to express myself concentrated in a foreign language, very early in the morning. Petersburg, as the old capital, is by me most definitely counted to Russia-proper. If that's another usage than your, I'm sorry to have confused you. That was most certainly not my intention. I wanted to achieve an improvement and steer clear of yet another potential conflict.
--Ruhrjung 08:14, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Well, well, until the soil is drenched by the Baltic Sea I believe I'll continue to think that the soil in question remains where it has always been." What a horrible Old Europe volkische-blood-and-soil line. Alfred Rosenberg would have been proud of it. If you take that attitude you can't complain when the Poles insist that Pomerania and Silesia remained eternally Polish, now can you?