User talk:HerkusMonte

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Nun, Brüder, sind wir frohgemut

HerkusMonte, there is a problem with the review you posted here: there is no icon indicating what the result of the review is.

The problem seems to be that you have not filled out the {{DYK checklist}} template correctly. In particular, the instructions for the "status" field, which causes an icon to be displayed, are as follows: Put "y" if no problems, "?" for minor problems, "maybe" if nomination needs work, "no" if completely ineligible, "again" to request another reviewer take a look. You haven't used any of these values, so no icon appears.

Please return to the review at your earliest convenience to fix the template and complete your review. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, HerkusMonte. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Hans Bredow

Hello! Your submission of Hans Bredow at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the article! It's also featured on Portal:Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Königsberg

Hello HerhusMonte, your sweeping reversal - what do you mean by "POVish", please - has put back all the poor English copyedits and such unfortunate and colossal bloomers like describing Hebrew script as "Yiddish" for the city's name! Is it possible you could be more exacting and helpful in your editing?? --Po Mieczu (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Po Mieczu: Why did you move specific languages to the top? I don't see any reason to split the names like that. I'm unable to read Hebrew, I guess it's just the specific spelling of the Yiddish "Kenigsberg" in Hebrew letters.I don't think it's actually a different name.

Calling the Albertina an "initially Polish and Lithunaian intellectual center“ is an exceptional claim which needs a much better source than the source you provided (a wayback machine version of "Albertina on postcards and stamps"). The Albertina was a German language University from the start, your selective choice of notable students shows a significant national (POVish) bias.

You replaced a section header Duchy of Prussia with Polish Prussia. Polish Prussia is a term used for Royal Prussia, the western part of the Teutonic Order's state which became part of Poland in 1466. Königsberg was not part of Royal/Polish Prussia. Again a POVish edit.

Some other changes were just minor sentence constructions, grammatically wrong (Stadtstheater) or unsourced. I'm pretty sure the Königsberg garrison wasn't "quartered" and Christian Ludwig von Kalckstein wasn't assassinated but sentenced to death by a Prussian court.

If you think some of your changes should be adopted, please seek WP:Consensus at the relevant talk page. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity of Spätaussiedler

Look, English wikipedia very clearly says that they could be of any ethnicity, not just ethnic Germans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#Germany

Quote from the "Right of return" article, "Germany" section: "German law allows (1) persons descending from German nationals OF ANY ETHNICITY or (2) persons of ethnic German descent and living in countries of the former Warsaw Pact (as well as Yugoslavia) the right to "return" to Germany and ("re")claim German citizenship."

Also, Spätaussiedler do not have to be Reichsdeutsche but also Volksdeutsche (who were not German citizens before WW2, but lived for example in Volhynia).

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Deutsche Welle article about Spätaussiedler which clearly mentions that many of them were ethnic Poles or with mixed Polish-German identity:

https://www.dw.com/pl/emigracja-z-polski-do-niemiec-liczna-i-prawie-niewidoczna/a-16181647 Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article mentions Czesław Gołębiewski and Lukas Podolski as examples of ethnic Polish Spätaussiedler (not family members, but Spätaussiedler - they could be ethnic Poles or other ethnic Slavs as well). I will remove those edits by sock. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Spätaussiedler

Immigrants from pre-war Polish Silesia (East Upper Silesia) were also counted as Spätaussiedler or not?

Because there were around 2 million Einhemische Silesians there in 1950: https://i.imgur.com/HmJiihn.png

Source (Tabelle 7): https://ulis-buecherecke.ch/pdf_neben_dem_krieg/schlesien_und_die_schlesier.pdf

Wojewodschaft Kattowitz included small part of West Upper Silesia with over 300,000 Autochthons, but the remaining 2 million were Einhemische Silesians from East Upper Silesia, which had been part of Poland already before 1939. Many East Upper Silesians also emigrated to Germany for economical reasons.

If they were counted as Spätaussiedler, then you cannot equate Spätaussiedler with "autochthons of Regained Lands".

In such case I suggest we should remove the statement about the number of Spätaussiedler because it has nothing to do with the number of "autochthons of Regained Lands", as Spätaussiedler could be recruited also from other groups (Volksdeutsche in all regions of Poland, even Lublin etc., Silesians in East Upper Silesia which is not part of "Regained Lands", etc.).

I removed that statement from those two articles, but I added it to the article about Right of return: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return#Germany

And I added "See also" templates linking to Right of return page to those two Ostgebiete-related articles.

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ontario (steamboat)

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fryatt

Hi, can you provide an English translation of the quote you added to the reference? I think it would benefit those readers who don't speak German. Mjroots (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk vote

Please respect Gdansk vote-it isn't used for modern locations in Poland or administrative districts.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount:: "For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names" These districts obviously share a history, the date of construction of the current houses is completely irrelevant. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw shares a lot of history with Germany Herkus-are you claiming all locations in Warsaw and its administrative districts should have Germanised names? For instance are you claiming [[]]Wola district should have Germanised name just because Wola Massacre happened there?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep this discussion factual. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,are you saying Wola Massacre didn't happen? Please clarify. I believe you are seriously misrepresenting the vote-it isn't used for descriptions of modern locations but for historical part of the articles. Since all of Poland was once under German occupation in WW2 your interpretation would mean every Polish location should have a Germanised name-which is obviously wrong and absurd.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masurian People's Party

Hello. Just a heads up: You introduced a contradictory claim in this article that an MVP candidate received around a third of the vote in a constituency, but the winning Conservative Party candidate received 73% of the vote. Cheers, Number 5 7 18:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Masurians

Hi, Hieronim Malecki moved to Masuria in the 1500s but at that time a lot of Poles/Masovians were moving to Masuria, so I think he should be added back because he was one of the "founders" of this population, and he was Lutheran. I'll add him back. The ones without articles on English Wikipedia were taken from Polish Wikipedia.
Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Carlshof Institutions

Hello! Your submission of Carlshof Institutions at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request

Hello HerkusMonte, Would you write / translate the article of Isabelle de Charrière (Q123386) for the NDS Wikipedia? That would be appreciated. Boss-well63 (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see...

...this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:FDP chairs

Template:FDP chairs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before/after 1945...

I would perhaps suggest that you refrain form adding stand alone text about "before 1945" (it was Germany) or "after 1945" (expelled Germans) into every Polish town and village article. In some cases, it appears that the new text exceeds what's already written in these small stub articles, thus clearly creating issues of undue weight and balance. Also, if you want to expand on the history of a particular place, then please start at the beginning, as most of those areas were part of the Piast Poland and were inhabited by the Slavs, before German colonization. 1945 is not the "start of history", for those places. --E-960 (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E-960, If you would take a closer look to my edits you would realize I only reverted a sockpuppet. The single sentence "the area was part of Germany before 1945" was added by the bot who created these articles (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). I restored longstanding versions of these articles. Could you please explain why you deleted clearly sourced content ([4], [5]) HerkusMonte (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, upon further review I did notice that a bot used a template to generate these stub articles for Polish towns and villages. However, I'm not sure if a person set the template up and the bot did the rest, as I'm not familiar with the technical aspect of this. However, I'm completely taken aback by the fact that out of ALL the history, the only reference made was that "prior to 1945 it was Germany" (since forever???). This is clearly POV-ish, and cherry-picked. I think a bot should be used to remove these blurb statements, or include a bit more detail to summarize the history of the region(s) from the start. --E-960 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how you're calling it "POV" and "cherry-picked", while you're deleting facts about the changing of borders in 1945 and deleting sourced German place names, but at the same time you're adding the information - totally standing-alone - , that this areas belonged to Poland 1000 years ago (!)... A time where the most of this villages WASN'T even founded! lol.. Just to proof the claim of the ancient Piast/Polish grounds... THIS is POV... It's so obvious what your intention is. --Jonny84 (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny84, stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and imply what my "intentions" are. When someone adds a statement to a sort stub article and only says "before 1945 it was germany" and nothing else... it's POV. Pomerania was Polish, an independent duchy, Polish, Danish, Swedish, Prussian, German and again Polish. So, it was more Polish than "German" when looking at the full context. When someone adds an out of context statement which say that it was germany before 1945... what does that suggest, that it was such since the last ice age??? Funny, how you don't notice this imbalance in the text, yet throw around grievances. I hate to break it to you, but Germany is not the only country that lost much territory, yet you don't see such POV-ish additions in other country articles": "it was Sweden before 1809", or "it was Poland before 1945", or "it was Great Britain before 1921". --E-960 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny84, btw that's non-sense, you ridicule me for adding a reference to Mieszko I saying that "this areas belonged to Poland 1000 years ago (!)", then you follow that by adding a reference to germanic tribes form like 2000 years ago, who left and just went west. Really, just stop with you POV push, it's clear that you only load up Poland articles with stuff (out of context) related to Germany or germans. Like for example you did not bother to mention that the area also belonged to the Kingdom of Denmark, or that Duchy of Pomerania was a Slavic duchy. You edits are POV-ish and create undue weight, ignoring anything non-german to the point of grossly distorting history. --E-960 (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A standard message to notify about an administrative ruling in effect.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- GizzyCatBella🍁 14:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m replying to your message left here -->[6]. You have shown interest in Central/ Eastern Europe, particularly the WW2 history of Poland (eg. [7]). Due to past disruption in this subject area, an additional strict set of rules named discretionary sanctions is in effect hence the above notice. Consider yourself notified. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April

... with thanks from QAI