User talk:IIIraute

Welcome!

Hello, IIIraute! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jojhutton (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your Edit at WW2 Casualties

Show me where that web page says 500,000 civilians were killed in Allied Bombings. Your edit must cite a reliable source that can be verified. Not just a web page of a German school district.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(1) the source is not from any kind of school district, but backed by the Federal State of Lower Saxony.

(2) To confirm the figure of 500.000 - 600.000 available at the Federal Government of Lower Saxony - here, another source by the "Stiftung Haus der Geschichte d--Woogie10w (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)--Woogie10w (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)er Bundesrepublik Deutschland" http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/wk2/kriegsverlauf/staedte/index.html ...website from the permanent official exhibition by the Federal Republic of Germany in Berlin. (...last paragraph)--IIIraute (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

They are NOT the source, they are citing figures from Die Welt May 5,2005--Woogie10w (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the 2nd source I did provide you with is provided by the "German Historical Museum" and its permanent exhibition.--IIIraute (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The cited website from the "German Historical Museum" can also be found at: http://www.dhm.de/ , section LeMo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Historisches_Museum--IIIraute (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

For further research about the institution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Historisches_Museum , as well as: http://www.dhm.de/international/docs/DHM_Englisch.pdf --IIIraute (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather than rely on tertiary sources and websites like Die Welt and the Deutsches_Historisches_Museum we need to use secondary sources like Wirtschaft und Statistik and the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I will report your changes (that were also not done in the manner they are supposed to) - The German Historical Museuam (a). was contracted by the German Government, (b) has its own research departments, with access to some of the largest WWII archives in the world, with dozens of historians working for them. To Translate Allied "Luftangriffe" and "Bombardements" with Air War is revisionist and wrong.--IIIraute (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The source for the figure of 500,000-600,000 dead at the Deutsches_Historisches_Museum is most likely the 1956 data from Wirtschaft und Statistik, I have given the details of that figure at WW2 casualties. --Woogie10w (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The article "Bilanz des Bombenkreigs" in Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Bd. 9/1, is informative, I think you will find it of interest. Beste Grusse --Woogie10w (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I know the books, however I also do know that the German Historical Museum spent years on researching the given figures, trying to put up an unbiased exhibition. Thank you for helping, i.e. putting the whole Soviet, Polish civilian isssue right.--IIIraute (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe you could help on the whole issue of establishing a paragraph of mentioning the consequences the war did bring on Germany herself. (similar to the figures published by the German Historical Museum; total civilian dead, POW's, war dead, destroyed flats, etc.)--IIIraute (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Those figures are there, except destroyed flats which are not casualties. We need to use published reliable sources rather than websites that do not cite the sources of the figures, like the German Historical Museum.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, do you know a published reliable academic source in German (not a website for school children) that has figures for total German civilian dead, POW's, war dead ?--Woogie10w (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the website of the German Historical Museum is best for middle school students, we can do a lot better on Wikipedia and use only published reliable academic sources--Woogie10w (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I maybe didn't make myself very clear. I was talking about the "Nazi Germany" article. Please have a look at the talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazi_Germany#Reversion_of_recent_edits_by_IIIraute --IIIraute (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

and again, the German Historical Museum is a worldwide recognised Institution. The point is not on how they distribute their information, but what information (as being officially contracted by the German Government)--IIIraute (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I do understand your concern, I am a historian myself (BA History Hons. University of London; PgD History - University of Cambridge; MLitt. University of Glasgow, working on my PhD) I have worked for years with the German Historical Institute in London, many Museums and other Reserach Institutions)--IIIraute (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine please tell me about published reliable academic sources that I can verify, not a website for children!--Woogie10w (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you cite an article in Die Welt or the website of German Historical Museum in an historical paper that you would present to your academic colleagues?--Woogie10w (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The German Historical Museum, YES ...some of them are actually my colleagues.

Deutschland 1945-1949, Informationen zur politischen Bildung (Heft 259), Bonn, 2005

Wolfgang Benz, Infrastruktur und Gesellschaft im zerstörten Deutschland

Thomas Berger/Karl-Heinz Müller (Hg.), Lebenssituationen 1945-1948, Hannover 1983

Peter Graf von Kielmannsegg: Nach der Katastrophe. Eine Geschichte des geteilten Deutschland, Berlin 2000

Philipp Ther, Deutsche und polnische Vertriebene: Gesellschaft und Vertriebenenpolitik in der SBZ/DDR und in Polen 1945–1956, in: Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft, Band 127, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1998

Heinrich Siedler: Dokumentation zur Deutschlandfrage, Siegler & Co. KG – Verlag für Zeitarchive, Bonn 1961.

--IIIraute (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To phrase publications and the information of permanent exhibitions of a worldwide recognized research institute and museum, that was contracted by the German Government - "for middle school students" - is quite arrogant. I only gave the German Historical Museum as ONE example, suggesting a variety of sources. The same figures you can find within the following bibliography. For more research:

• Benz, Wolfgang, Potsdam 1945. Besatzungsherrschaft und Neuaufbau im Vier-Zonen-Deutschland, München 1994.
• Benz, Wolfgang:, Die Gründung der Bundesrepublik. Von der Bizone zum souveränen Staat, München 1989
• Broszat, Martin / Weber, Hermann (Hg.), SBZ-Handbuch. München 1990.
• Buchheim, Christoph, Die Wiedereingliederung Westdeutschlands in die Weltwirtschaft 1945-1958, München 1990.
• Steininger Rolf, Deutsche Geschichte seit 1945. Darstellung und Dokumente in vier Bänden. Frankfurt a. M. 1996.
• Vaubel, Ludwig, Zusammenbruch und Wiederaufbau. Ein Tagebuch aus der Wirtschaft 1945-1949, München 1985.
• Deutschland 1945-1949, Informationen zur politischen Bildung (Heft 259), Bonn, 2005

• Wolfgang Benz, Infrastruktur und Gesellschaft im zerstörten Deutschland

• Thomas Berger/Karl-Heinz Müller (Hg.), Lebenssituationen 1945-1948, Hannover 1983

• Peter Graf von Kielmannsegg: Nach der Katastrophe. Eine Geschichte des geteilten Deutschland, Berlin 2000

• Philipp Ther, Deutsche und polnische Vertriebene: Gesellschaft und Vertriebenenpolitik in der SBZ/DDR und in Polen 1945–1956, in: Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft, Band 127, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1998

• Heinrich Siedler: Dokumentation zur Deutschlandfrage, Siegler & Co. KG – Verlag für Zeitarchive, Bonn 1961.

--IIIraute (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

German Victims of the Nazi Era

Do you know of a recent reliable published source that details the losses of non-Jewish Germans? The only official figure I have is 300,000 victims(including Jews) that was published by the West German government in 1960. There are numerous studies of those killed in the expulsions and air raids but nothing on those Germans killed by the Nazis.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that between 1933 and 1945, 16.560 individuals of German citizenship were sentenced to death, of which ca. 12.000 were executed. 664 individuals were sentenced to death before-, 15.896 during WWII.

• Karl Bruno Leder, Todesstrafe. Ursprung, Geschichte, Opfer. München, 1986

• Ingo Müller, Furchtbare Juristen: die unbewältigte Vergangenheit unserer Justiz, Kindler, 1987

--IIIraute (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

At east 100.000 individuals, killed from Action T4

http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1999_3.pdf

• Götz Aly (Hrsg.): Aktion T4 1939–1945. Die „Euthanasie“-Zentrale in der Tiergartenstraße 4. Edition Hentrich, Berlin 1989

• Michael Burleigh (Hrsg.): Tod und Erlösung. Euthanasie in Deutschland 1900–1945 (Gebundene Ausgabe)“. Verlag Pendo, 2002

• Alfred Hagemann, Euthanasie im NS-Staat: Grafeneck im Jahr 1940. Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart 2000.

• Ernst Klee, Euthanasie im NS-Staat. Die Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens. S. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 1983

• Ernst Klee, Dokumente zur Euthanasie. Fischer Taschenbuch, Frankfurt1985

ca. 130.000 victims from political, religious, active or passive resistance. http://www.gdw-berlin.de/

• Exhibition "Resistance to National Socialism", Berlin, 2005

• Hans Rothfels, Die deutsche Opposition gegen Hitler. Eine Würdigung. Frankfurt a. M., 1969

• Ulrich Cartarius, Opposition gegen Hitler. Deutscher Widerstand 1933-1945, Berlin, 1984

• Gerd R. Ueberschär, Der deutsche Widerstand gegen Hitler. Wahrnehmung und Wertung in Europa

und den USA, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 2002

• Jan Foitzik, Zwischen den Fronten. Zur Politik, Organisation und Funktion linker politischer Kleinorganisationen im Widerstand 1933 bis 1939/1940, Bonn, 1986

--IIIraute (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

...so I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you; the subject is actually extremely well documented... I could easily give you another 50 sources. It has been done German style - almost pedantic. --IIIraute (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellant, this should be on the WW2 Casualties page. What do you think?--Woogie10w (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course... I do agree. However, usually those numbers are listed separately as they are generally not regarded as WWII victims but more towards being victims from German interior politics.--IIIraute (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not so, the victims of the nazis are included in the totals of other countries, France, Greece, Poland and the USSR ect--Woogie10w (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, and the general policy on the WWII casualties page, then I guess it is ok to add the figures to the other ones. I guess sometimes people have a problem with this, as they do not like the the number of German casualties to increase, because they argue that they died from own Nazi-, and not from any Allied actions. But if you regard the Nazis as an own entity, the regime, Gestapo etc. (not generalising the whole German nation as being this entity) it makes sense. The problem already lies within the definiton of "Nazi Germany", as of course it was "Germany" or "Deutsches Reich" ..... by calling it Nazi Germany one somehow makes every citizen a Nazi.--IIIraute (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My experience over the years has been that there is a definite anti-German bias among some people who do not want see any mention of German civilian casualties. The expulsions from Eastern Europe and the post war famine receive scanty attention in the English speaking world. That is why I try to use only scholary and official secondary sources when I edit. I try my best follow the Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I do agree, and I think the work you are doing is very valuable. At first, I didn’t really want to get involved (here at the Wikipedia) with matters regarding subjects like the ones we are discussing here (especially WWII related ones). But when I came across the “Nazi Germany” article, I just couldn’t ignore the anti-German, revisionist bias the article did- and (because of lack of balance), still does contain to some degree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazi_Germany#Reversion_of_recent_edits_by_IIIraute

--IIIraute (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been on Wikipedia for five years and have found that at times it can be a frustrating experience when you find that good work that you have done is vandalized or rewritten by POV pushers. The topic of Eastern Europe and modern German-Polish history in particular has become a battleground for ethnic warriors who spend countless hours engaging in acrimonious disputes. I avoid this heisses Eisen like the plague.

Recently I tried to start a discussion on the German Wikpedia page Kriegstote des Zweiten Weltkrieges [1] as user Gut Rechnen but found no support to help improve the page. [2]. I have a good reading knowledge of German, but my writing skills need improvement. We could collaborate If you have an interest in improving Kriegstote des Zweiten Weltkrieges.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse my late reply. Yes, I also have experienced quite frustrating debates on the Wikipedia. From my experience I can tell you that some WWII related topics on the German Wikipedia are very much influenced by political and cultural lobbying. You will find it very difficult (even by bringing progressive, academic, well-sourced, thoughtful and reasonable suggestions) to make yourself heard. To me it looks like there is a clique of people granting absolution to each other, while very much ignoring suggestions from outsiders. I am not sure if I really want to get myself into this, as I already spend most of my professional life with similar topics. I can also tell you, that Rüdiger Overmans statistical analysis of German military personnel records is not the most popular study among many Germans; as many regard his method of statistical analysis as very problematic. However, I am very willing to assist you with any questions and sources, as well as matters regarding German grammar & writing. At the moment, I just do not have the time (and the nerves) that would be necessary to deal with this subject properly (the way it deserves to be dealt with).--IIIraute (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for getting back to me. I wish you all the best in your professional endeavors. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

December 2011

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Rambo (film), are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. SudoGhost 03:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, please be aware that you have violated WP:3RR by making 5 reverts in a matter of hours, and that making more than three reverts within a 24-hour period usually leads to a block, even if your feel you're correcting an incorrect edit. Please don't take this as an accusatory message, because that's not the intention, it's just a notification of the 3RR rule, in case you weren't aware of it. - SudoGhost 03:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the information and your help.--IIIraute (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, IIIraute. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rambo (film)

Hi Illruate, I apologize for not responding soon, I just regestered on Wikipedia, and I was unsure of how to reply to something someone sent me.

As for the Rambo page,

1. I don't see any reason to label it a "German/American" movie, since it's just a movie, it was released all over the world. It was also made by American studios, and just because it also had a German produciton company doesn't make it a German movie also. It's just a movie for crying out loud, thats why I recently deleted the "German/American" part of it, and left it as and action movie, which it is, no reason to get label it as being from one country.

2. I realize that you left "action film" uncapitalized this time around, but I was uncapitalizing that because it's not proper grammar.

3. I know I have not been correcting this, but John Rambo is a Veitnam veteran, not a Cold War veteran. I know, Veitnam was a part of The Cold War, but if you ask my mom's dad and my dad's dad, they'll say they are Korean and Veitnam veterans, not Cold War vets.

JesseDBaker (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)JesseDBaker

Thank you for your reply. What you are writing here does not represent the truth. 1. Two days ago you did reply to the message I left on your talk page but then quickly deleted it again. 2. You repeatedly changed the text to "American" (not leaving this part neutral) ignoring the sources given. At your last edit you changed the "Country" section again to USA only. 3. If you read the credits (http://www.rambothefilm.com/credits.jpg), the movie was produced by several Studios FOR the Equity Pictures Medienfonds. Also, the film is copyright by the Equity Pictures Medienfonds, therefore making them the creator of the work and giving them the exclusive rights to it. The copyright holder owns the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms and who may financially benefit from it, and other, related rights. The Equity Pictures Medienfonds basically "owns" the movie with all its intellectual property. 4. In Rambo III, John Rambo enganges on a mission to Afghanistan, fighting the Soviets in the Soviet-Afghan War. 5. Please, in future, also use the Discussion page.--IIIraute (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

1.For that reply that I deleted, I didn't think that was how you are supposed to reply, BECAUSE I JUST REGISTERED, so I deleted it, and I was looking for another way to reply.

2. The last time before you changed it back, I deleted the "German/American" part, leaving it as just an action movie. That's what it says for the previous three Rambo films, so I thought I would just leave it at that.

3. Just cause he is sent on a mission to the Afghan-Soviet war, doesn't make him a veteran of that war, that would be id he was enlisted in that war, which, I don't seem to think he was, he was just sent on mission, and was not a part of either the Soviet military, or the Mujahideen. And besides, on the other three Rambo film pages, it lists John Rambo as a Veitnam veteran, which is what he is, seeing as how he only served in the Veitnam war. He didn't technically serve in the Soviet-Afgahn War.

JesseDBaker (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)JesseDBaker

Kat Von D

This is the required warning to alert you that you are approaching WP:3RR at Kat Von D. In your edit-warring, you have inserted duplicate links that appear in both the lead and the body, and you removed a citation taken directly from the subject's own official biography because you disagreed with what it said. To prevent further edit-warring, I am requesting an WP:RfC. Please do not edit the article in question while the RfC is in progress.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC is now active here. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I did three reverts; so did you! What citation from her own official biography did I remove?--IIIraute (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

von Drachenberg: The official US-government documents from the "United States Patent and Trademark Office" that prove that her real name of birth is "KATHERINE VON DRACHENBERG". http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=85049892#; please see her application for the trademark of "Kat Von D": http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85049892/APP20100531102050/Application/4/27-May-2010/sn/false#p=1 (see pages 1, 3 & 4). Where did she get that name from, if not from her father? Guess you got it wrong, Tenebrae! --IIIraute (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Illraute. I must have misread or misunderstood one of the posts to the Kat Von D talk page. I thought of a birth certificate because one of the editors wants to say she changed her name. I would think looking at her birth certificate could put that to rest. That's why I suggested that. From your message to me, it sounds like that really is not an issue.Coaster92 (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Following the admin's advice

Would you be open to following the admin's advice on our 3RR page and pursuing with me dispute resolution at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As you are not really interested in improving the article, do whatever you think you have to do - although to prevent further damage, maybe it would be better if both our accounts got blocked, as IMHO your edits are ignorant, manipulative, contraproductive and only serve the support of your dogmatic, self-opinionated POV.--IIIraute (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps your rudeness wasn't malicious, and that you simply didn't have much experience speaking collaboratively with people. I see by the venom you spew above that this probably isn't so, and that you're simply an angry, abusive person. I find it very ironic that the traits you hurl so blithely, as if you're not dealing with another human being, are exactly what one would ascribe to you if one were at your level. I'm sorry for whatever it is in your life that makes you angry that you feel the need to behave here in a way that one would hope you never do in real life.

I'll pass along your answer to the admin who'd asked us to seek DP, and see what he suggests we do at this point. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

IIIraute, your reply, here, is incredibly uncivil. I'm dismayed.

I don't doubt you're certain of being right, but that does not justify taking such a tone. You're advised to play it down a few notches. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You did everything possible to manipulate the given fact that her name is "Katherine von Drachenberg", persisting that her name was "Drachenberg" only. You discredited all secondary sources, interviews, the articles of major newspapersa such as the NYpost, the LaTimes, Spiegel, The DailyMail, broadcasters like ABC, CBS, etc. ,published literature, etc.etc.I had to first bring official US government documents as well as a copy of her passport until you would accept that her name is "Katherine von Drachenberg".

Now, you are trying to do the same about her name of birth, speculating that she must have changed her name during adulthood, putting all your emphasis into the bio on her website that says that her father is "Rene Drachenberg" and - although it does not once - in the whole bio - directly say that her name is "Drachenberg" only, you persist on that one source, that isn't really one. You are the one making that speculative connection, just because it says that her father is called "Rene Drachenberg", so it also must be her name of birth. Again, you discredit all other sources - especially her published autobiography with a circulation of many thousand copies in which she gives both of her grandparents - as well as her own name as "von Drachenberg". In a second book written by her both, her brothers and her sisters name are given as "von Drachenberg". Redarding to your claim, her brother and sister also must have changed their names during adulthood. Again, for all those claims, you do not have a sigle source. Also, you discredit again several sources, such as from major newspapers and magazines that say that she was "born" von Drachenberg. So what's the point?--IIIraute (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not discrediting any of the sources. None of them say her birth name was "von Drachenberg". They only say that is her adult name. The one thing we know unequivocally is that she herself says her father's name is simply "Drachenberg," a fact you seem unwilling to accept though it's in plain black-and-white in her official bio. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not true, lots of the newspaper & broadcasting sources say literally "born" von Drachenberg! You say her fathers name was "Drachenberg"; I say both of her grandparents and all of her siblings are named "von Drachenberg"; don't bring your that's how it is in the USA, because you are speculating about the status of her family; apart from that she was NOT born in the USA but in Mexico, she was not an american citizen to the age of 5.--IIIraute (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources you've shown so far say "born von Drachenberg" that I have seen, and she certainly hasn't said it anywhere that I can find. Second, I never said USA: I said the New World and North America. I would ask that you read my comments and your sources more carefully.

So what about that purported passport photo? Where did it come from, and how is it that you claim to have a private image of someone's highly personal document? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You ask me to read your comments and your sources more carefully? Are you drunk? May I quote you: "It is absolutely standard in intact American families that children take their father's name." as well as "In the United States, particularly years ago, it was absolutely standard in intact American families for children to talk the father's last name."--IIIraute (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

...also, you continuously keep ignoring all the given sources; here are some more:

USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2010-10-28-katvond28_ST_N.htm

LosAngelesTimes:http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/08/entertainment/et-laink8

The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/11/women.leoniecooper --IIIraute (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything. In fact, I converted your raw URLs into full citations.

You, however, are ignoring that I said I said New World and North America at Talk:Kat Von D at 17:20, 28 January 2012.

Much more importantly however, you're ignoring my question as to how you purportedly claim to have photographed Kat Von D's passport. Did you Photoshop it? Did you surreptitiously photograph it? Or are you a friend, colleague, relative or some other conflict-of-interest person? Why don't you answer? Because if you're not a disinterested party, you should not be editing this article. And if it's not Photoshopped, you should not be putting someone's private documents on the web. Why are you afraid of being honest? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

...just keep guessing Tenebrae - I doubt that in real life you'd get the chance to talk to me at all. T'rah & bye for now!--IIIraute (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't want to. But I have talked at length with Kat, ironically enough.

And I did just see her passport image on her Facebook page, so why you had to behave as badly as you did when I asked a straightforward question I shall leave to you and your conscience. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

well, good for you - so have I.... but not on facebook. I hope you also got your answer regarding her name of birth and we can now remove your false claim.

Regarding your former question: I did answer it a long time ago; maybe you should pay some more attention (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - 20:07, 28 January 2012).--IIIraute (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a false claim — her official bio says herself her fathers last name is Drachenberg. If you persist in making false accusations, then we're headed to an admin for adjudication. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, that her FATHER'S name is Drachenberg. Apart from that, I thought the admin did just whistle you back to the article talkpage. Your mind rather works bureaucratic than academic, doesn't it?--IIIraute (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it works like that of a journalist, which I've been for over 30 years. She says her father's last name is Drachenberg and she herself never says her birth name was von Drachenberg. The article balances reportage with her own official site. At this point we can keep arguing ad infinitum or seek dispute resolution. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously not a very good one. She says her father's last name is Drachenberg - yes, true. She herself never says her birth name was von Drachenberg - yes true, but she also does not say she was born Drachenberg..... and that's why, for this very last issue, we turn towards the three high profile sources we have, that actually do; I thought you know how the wikipedia works.--IIIraute (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your insulting comment that I am " obviously not a very good" journalist is quite ironic, coming from some supposed academic who used the word "barbarical." Or should I say, "ironical"?

I know quite well how Wikipedia works; I know quite well how journalism works. If you want to go to dispute resolution, we can let a mediator decide. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well you got me there, isn't that great. Does that make you feel better about yourself? I am fluent in four languages; sometimes I make mistakes. I do not care if you credit my academic career, respect my ancient aristocratic heritage or if you are jealous that one can find my name on the wikipedia. I do not have to wake up in your life tomorrow. Open a dispute if you want to. You were not very successful with your last one.--IIIraute (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Both parties have to agree to mediation. Before I go to the trouble, are you agreeing to it?

Oh, and I happen to be the subject of a Wikipedia article myself. It turn out I'm a actually very good and widely published journalist. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

...writing on naive comics? I am not some subject of an article; the wikipedia article itself (in several languages) is about my family and me... No offense meant! --IIIraute (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. ...if you are a successful and accredited journalist, how is it possible that you spend your time on the wikipedia, like being on the dole?--IIIraute (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

None taken. I actually feed bad for someone whose life is such that he feels the need to be bitter, angry and sarcastic with other people.

So: Mediation or status quo? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Och, you don't need to feel bad for me. I am quite a jolly person; maybe with a hint of sarcasm. I mean I have to credit you for your endurance.... but come on... 70.000 edits... most of this stuff will be rewritten anyway. You cannot have much time left with the time you spend on the wikipedia. Why don't you use some of your energy and time to get some of your thoughts published? To be honest, I couldn't and wouldn't want to do this! Isn't it ironic that with all our technological progress during the last 4000 years, we haven't really developed anything longer-lasting than Cuneiform script.

I guess for the moment we can call it a truce... Bye for now.--IIIraute (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I think it's great that you have such a passion for your comic-books... I really mean it. So long...!--IIIraute (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So she herself gives it two ways, and most vociferously in her autobio. I assume you won't object if we put von Drachenberg in the lead and make a footnote statement with what she says on her website. I'll go ahead and do that. Please notify me if you have any issues. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine... thank you for your edits. In her bio (http://www.katvond.net/_html/bio.htm) her birthday is given as "March 8th, 1982"; in her autobiography it only says "March 1982" on page 15.--IIIraute (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have looked there, but I've been on deadline today. I'll add the cite. And I must say, despite everything, the article is much improved, with your find of the trademark registration a particularly good addition. I'm sorry our encounter took on a personal tone, and I'm glad all's well that ends well. Best wishes on your future Wiki endeavors. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries! Only the result matters. Without your persistence I wouldn't have put in that effort. I am sorry for behaving a bit gruff sometimes, but I think you are right and we did improve the article... so, thank you for your help. All the best for you & take care... --IIIraute (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Germany

Illraute, I think I may have inadvertently backed out some of your edits to Germany. I hope you understand that your edits were not the target of my changes and were in fact innocent collateral damage. Sorry... Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Djkernen, no problem. Thank you for your message. Best regards & take care, --IIIraute (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Germany, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bosch and MAN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

BdV

IMO it is best not to cite the Bvd as a source. The German government ie. C Bergner and the DRK are impeccable sources. With that said IMO the figure of 2 million is as soft as shit, it lacks a solid basis. But it is a political third rail in Germany.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think the DRK and he German government ie. C Bergner source should stay. After all the DRK is doing most of the work for the last 70 years. They basically have a report/file on every missing person. I think it is very POV and political lobbying to exclude missing people; if one did that with Jews, the Holocaust figures would be much lower. So what happened to the other 1.6 million Germans? The Bvd could still be mentiond though?--IIIraute (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bvd is a political pressure group that lacks academic or official status. Erika Steinbach and the BvD have been involved in controversies recently that only bring into question their credibility as a source on Wikipedia. You wrote I think it is very POV and political lobbying to exclude missing people; if one did that with Jews, the Holocaust figures would be much lower. So what happened to the other 1.6 million Germans? I agree, but we need a reliable academic source that says this. The Polish Institute of National Remembrance puts the wartime death toll at 5.6 to 5.8 million of which 1.5 million are confirmed. In any case the missing people in Germany are not excluded, the article gives reliable sources to detail the losses. We cannot say on one line that the DRK says 2,252,500 were dead in expulsions-case closed. The analysis of Ingo Haar and the Hahn's and Overmans must be in the article to give it a balanced and NPOV.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Und das seien, wie der „Spiegel“ vor drei Jahren geschrieben habe, zu einem Drittel ehemalige Nationalsozialisten

This article in Frankfurter Allgemeine should warn us to avoid the BvD as a source [3]--Woogie10w (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue of the 1.1 million POW in the is already covered, See the POW schedule in the Overmans section. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note well those figures you quote are men missing and presumed dead. Not all were POW, some may have been killed in battle. The bottom line they were missing and presumed dead but their fate is not known. They were are not all POW dead. According to Overmans there were 463,000 confirmed POW dead. He never said 1.2 million POW dead.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That is correct Overmans says of the 1.5 million missing on the eaatern front 1/2 are presumed to have died in custody, but this is not provable. The 363,000 cases are confirmed POW dead in the USSR. I believe the Overmans book is on Google books check page 289.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The article says. "The research by Overmans concluded in 2000 that German military dead and missing were 5,318,000", what is not true. Where are the 700.000 missing German POW from soviet custody in this number? They are in the 2 million missing!!I believe the Overmans book is on Google books check page 289.---Woogie10w (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Overmans there are 3.2 million confirmed dead and 2.0 million missing and presumed dead. I believe the Overmans book is on Google books de. please check --Woogie10w (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If you send me an Wiki E mail giving an e mail address, I will reply with a PDF file that has copies of the Overmans data. The book is no longer available on Google Books de. Dont worry I use Yahoo E mail and they scan for computer viruses, I have been on Wikipedia for 7 years. Dont worry--Woogie10w (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am finished at this point. If you see any point that is not clear or you feel is not correct, plaese bring it up on talk. I really appreciate your feedback.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

another reason why I want to keep the BvD off the page is that they have Rudi Pawelka on their board. Pawelka wants to sue Poland for his lost property, no wonder the Polish dislike the BvD. In 2002 when I visited my grandfathers hometown in modern day Poland the officials in the town thought I wanted to reclaim his land (LOL). In any case I would not want to live in Poland if the rent and board was free!! I had to explain that they left Germany in 1886 and my father was an American soldier in the war who fought the Germans. In 1969 I went to Germany and came home to tell my father about the expulsions. Like most other Americans he had no knoweledge of these events.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Noch Einmal Und das seien, wie der „Spiegel“ vor drei Jahren geschrieben habe, zu einem Drittel ehemalige Nationalsozialisten--Woogie10w (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In Germany in BvD is well known, not so here in the English speaking world. As a source on English Wikipedia not a good idea because of the flack from people in Poland. IMO Steinbach is doing a good job in trying to educate the younger generation about the dark days of the expulsion. However some Germans seem to have little or no knowledge of history of that period, On 9 September 2010 Steinbach resigned from the national board of the CDU after controversy surrounding her and her aides statements which blamed Hitler's invasion of Poland on Poland itself. Rudi Pawelka is head of the Prussian Trust and also the vice president of the BvD. Pawelka's claims are considered an outrage beyond the German borders. The Bvd posted as a source on Wikipedia will only invite well deserved negative comments by other editors.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, here she is on You tube [4] From a German POV she makes sense and is considered mainstream. But I am not the average American. Here in the US the topic of the expulsions is taboo, on Wikipedia we need to present the facts with reliable sources. 500-600,000 confirmed dead and 1.5 million others that the German Red Cross/C Bergner put as dead from hunger and disease. For many people outside of Germany Wikipedia is probably the first and only place they will read about the expulsions. We need to get the facts straight with impecable sources and avoid ethnic warfare. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Switzerland

Please self-revert yourself on Switzerland quickly. As per the rather specific warning at WP:ANEW, further reverts until you have discussed your differences and come to an agreement will result in blocks. Kuru (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the one that did file for edit warring. The new edits I did, have nothing to do with the previous topic.--IIIraute (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't care. Your revert at 03:15 is removing an item added by the other editor during your edit war and is your fourth revert. Again, please self-revert. Kuru (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That is actually true - I did remove the reference. I will undo the 03:15 edit. But only this one.--IIIraute (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Refs needed @ German Casualties in WW2

I added refs, no problem.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I must thank you, please point out things that need to be fixed. BTW I just ordered the Overmans book Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht - Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriegs, I should get it in the mail soon. Anyway if you also have the book that would be a great opporunity for us to work together here on the German POWs. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Austrians/Germans

I've changed the statement in the country information box about Austria that the main ethnic group is Germans. It is true that the US Department of State claims it to be correct, but please mind the contrary statement in the CIA Factbook. Also a lot of Austrian sources could be given that show that Austrians see themselves as a seperate nationality. Some examples are given int the article Austrians. You might also mind Encyclopaedia Britannica or the book "The World and it's peoples - Central Europe" p. 921 seqq. --Glorfindel Goldscheitel (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

MINI

Hello Illraute, I just wanted to point out that my proposal for a new Mini delineation does not include "Mini (marque)" at all. Cheers,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your proposal, but as far as I understand Rangoon11, he simply wants to move the Mini (marque) content to Mini. What's the difference, really?--IIIraute (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some - for instance, the Mini (marque) shouldn't really cover the first ten years, when the car was sold as an Austin/Morris.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Swedish people

hi , there is an ongoing dispute at the swedes ethnic group article whenever they should be described as germanic or not , throught studying your edits on wikipedia , it seems you are very expirienced about the subject and therfore invite you to the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swedes , thanks . 118.168.97.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. When you recently edited Malbork Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marienburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Berlin

The Offical Statistics of Berlin do not support the figure of 125,000, offical Belin data puts excess deaths at 25,500 in 4/45 [5] Clodfelter never cites the sources for his figures--Woogie10w (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Eine schöne Melodie von You Tube. [6]--Woogie10w (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Link?

What link are you referring to please, Illraute? Thanks. --BwB (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Sorry. Shouldn't have undone your change on the Mesut Özil article to apply WP:OVERLINK. I see it confused you. I should have done it right. My mistake. And for the record, I don't disagree that he's a German international player, we created a consensus and needed to create a new one. Thanks for doing the legwork on that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks & No worries! --IIIraute (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Great power

Hello, you recently undid an amount of work on Great power, did you remove the information because it not applicable or because of the dead link? I think there is still some useful information in the work that was removed (excluding the dead link), that is why I am asking if it is still valid. I do not mean this out of disrespect or such, just curious.

Cheers, Mate!

-Riley Huntley (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, for both reasons - the dead link and for being from the Johannes Rau times - so not really relevant anymore - see: [7] or [8], for example. regards, --IIIraute (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

French people

Hi, the picture is representing the French Marie Sklodowska Curie (she is from Poland!!), who lives in France. Is not this a bug? What do you think? Top811 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for your message. Officially she was born in the Russian Empire → [9] ?? --IIIraute (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that she was born in Russia, because Russia had seized the Polish territories. Polish was not on the map 123 years, until after the 1918 again gained its independence. She, her sister, her mother and father were Poles. Even the element Polonium, was associated with the Polish. Maria gave him the name in honor of the Polish, which was then under occupation, hoping that the discovery of the epiglottis that fact in the international arena. Top811 (talk)