User talk:De728631/2016

Translation help

Hi, I am Aforl from Singapore, and I'm currently working on a wiki project on Singapore's metro system. I've obtained these translations (English-> German) from some other places, and I was hoping that you could maybe help me verify/translate some metro-related terms into German:

Singapore MRT/LRT Map - Streckenplan MRT/LRT Singapur

Updated on 27th December 2015 - Am 27. Dezember 2015 aktualisiert

Opens in 2017 - ???

Downtown Line Stage 3 - 3. Stufe der Innenstadt-Linie

West Coast Extension - Verlängerung Westküste

Subject to feasibility studies - Von den Durchführbarkeitsstudien abhängig

Appreciate your assistance!!!!! :) Aforl (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aforl, and a Happy New Year! It looks like you're translating this map. Your translations are actually alright but let me suggest a few changes:

• Updated on 27th December 2015 - Stand: 27. Dezember 2015
• Opens in 2017 - Inbetriebnahme 2017
• Downtown Line Stage 3 - 3. Abschnitt der Innenstadt-Linie
• Subject to feasibility studies - Vorbehaltlich der Durchführbarkeitsstudien

Regards, De728631 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I am! Thank you very much for your translations! Aforl (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr!

Hi De728631 - wishing you all the best for 2016. Trust I can be of assistance to you too! Best M Mabelina (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot and Happy New Year to you too. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please explain to me

which part of "The song was frequently recorded by British bands of the 1960s" in regard to the article Money (That's What I Want), is a violation of "Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis"
Carptrash (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. De728631 (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

okay, however, User:Synthwave.94 had removed that edit and I have already been warned that I can be blocked if i go there again. So . . . . ....? Carptrash (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Also the only trout I am aware of is Trout Mask Replica and being whacked by that would be considered to be a great hono(u)r. 19:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said before at Synthwave's page, you both should better discuss it before anyone of you two reverts or restores anything at the article's page. 7&6=thirteen has now restored your version anyway but you guys should seek consensus at the talk page. @7&6=thirteen: No, being whacked with that would only damage the cover and/or record which would be a pity. And my doctor told me to eat more fish so I prefer the real thing. De728631 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well my edit is not there now and I think everyone who has commented on the issue on the talk page is in favo(u)r of including the British Invasion stuff. However I am NOT asking you as an admin to leap back into the fray, other than perhaps post what you posted elsewhere, that my edit is kosher. Carptrash (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's sad to see that Synthwave keeps removing your edits and so continues the edit war. I feel that I messed up so I won't step back in there anyways but maybe some of my admin-y talk page stalkers are feeling compelled to take some sort of action. De728631 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I am one of those editors who feels that part of wikipedia is that we editors should be able to work this stuff out without admins but it seems that, how does the Bible put it, God has hardened his heart about this and he (I can't imagine that this editor is a she) is going to play brinkmanship and probably loose. Oh well. Carptrash (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you be available for a German -> English project?

Hi there! I found you on Wikipedia:Translators available#German-to-English and wonder if you have the time to help on a project I'm working on. I'm trying to revise and update Ancient Egyptian medicine and its associated subarticles. From what I've found so far, it seems the majority of the modern work on Egyptian medical papyri has been done in Germany. One key reference is said to be the "Grundriss der Medizin der alten Agypter", a 9 volume work produced 1954-1973. What I would need translated are a few articles present on the German Wikipedia missing on the English, as well as some book/chapter and article titles in German. I'd also like to work with someone to compare the existing German and English Wikipedia articles to see which articles could benefit by translating content existing in one language and missing in the other. I'm a native English speaker, and do know a couple other languages, but German is, unfortunately, not one of them. If you're already involved in another project, I'll understand, but if not, and you have the time, I'd look forward to working with you. Hi-storian (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, this sounds like a pretty ambitious project, and I'm already involved in some things over at Commons. But I can take a look at one or the other missing article and reference. If you could give a list of the most urgently needed translations I think I can start there. De728631 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much! I can totally understand that you're already working another project, but when you have time, anything you can do to help would be most appreciated. I think the first priority is to locate more information about the "Grundriss der Medizin der alten Agypter". I can guess the title is "(something) of the Medicine of ancient Egypt" or perhaps "... the ancient Egyptians" (already you can see my lack of German showing) ... a work that one author said was a key work on the subject. Normally this would be something I'd research myself, but my attempts at using English language resources haven't turned up anything useful. There is apparently no article on the German Wikipedia as of yet. My search there did, however, turn up a link to "Wolfhart Westendorf" (possibly an author and Egyptologist) for which there are no foreign language links at all, nevermind English. There is a stub article for Hermann Grapow, but the German version is significantly more detailed. The English article lists a number of other works by the man, but again, without translations of the titles, it's hard for me to make a fair assessment of his contributions. There is a third author of the "Grundriss", which my English source lists as "H. von Deines". I know nothing of him, and don't have a first name. These are the largest and highest priorities. The rest would be mostly giving you some German titles and seeking simple English translations so that someone unfamiliar with German (like myself) can get a sense of the contents. I understand this is strictly on a time available basis, so I have no expectations as to how long you take ... I'm grateful that you're willing to simply take a look at this. As to priorities within this list, I've listed them from top priority to least urgent. That is, what I need most is basic bibliographic information about the 9 volume work, and then on a lower priority, on its authors. Thanks again for considering this project. Hi-storian (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: Could you also do me a quick favor and translate the following into German for my German userpage?? Thanks!

"Hi there! (Or a similar appropriate informal friendly greeting) I do not speak German, myself, but I'm working with some German-speaking users to translate a few German pages for the English Wikipedia. You can find more information on my projects on my English page."

P.P.S.: I did find the Library of Congress has 2 of the 9 volumes. The third author's name is Hildegard von Deines. Volume 1 1954 Anatomie und Physiologie |lccn=55032426 Volume 8 1962 Grammatik der medizinischen Texte |lccn=84252032 Of course, I'll pass along more info as I find it.

Ok, let's see what I can find. Grundriss der Medizin der alten Ägypter would translate to something along Outline of the Medicine of the Ancient Egyptians but according to Nunn the original is not available in English. Wolfhart Westendorf was a student and assistant of Grapow's. He wrote his PhD thesis about the use of genitive in classic Egyptian literature (ok, not a medical topic). However, he wrote his habilitation on the "Grammar of medical texts" and together with Grapow he became co-editor of that volume of Grundriss der Medizin der alten Ägypter. While he is a linguist by education he also did some more work on pharaonic medicine, e.g. on the Edwin Smith Papyrus (no details in the article but a book title). I think I can translate the German WP article to English once I've found some more references. Translations of his other medical works would be something like the following (the rest of the works listed in Westendorf's Wikipedia article are on linguistic topics):

• Papyrus Edwin Smith. Ein medizinisches Lehrbuch aus dem Alten Ägypten. = The Edwin Smith Papyrus. A medical textbook from ancient Egypt
• Erwachen der Heilkunst. Die Medizin im Alten Ägypten = The Awakening of Healing. Medicine in Ancient Egypt
• Handbuch der altägyptischen Medizin = Handbook of Ancient Egyptian medicine, 2 volumes

Back to the Grundriss. Hildegard von Deines doesn't have a Wikipedia article but she is one of the co-authors of the Grundriss. Apparently she worked mostly on the names of Egyptian drugs and translations of Egyptian texts. It should also be noted that Outline of the Medicine of the Ancient Egyptians is a work of several volumes with Grapow as the main editor and Westendorf and von Deines participated only in a few select volumes like dictionaries.

I've also found some English works while googling for Westendorf et al. which could be helpful:

• Eugen Strouhal et al.: The Medicine of the Ancient Egyptians
• Philippa Lang: Medicine and Society in Ptolemaic Egypt
• George K. York III., David A. Steinberg: "Neurology in Ancient Egypt" in History of Neurology: Handbook of Clinical Neurology.

And finally regarding your userpage, please put the following text on the front page of your German account (you'll have to do that yourself so your account will be automatically created on de.wiki). "Hallo. Ich spreche selbst kein Deutsch, aber ich arbeite zurzeit mit einigen deutschsprachigen Benutzern an der Übersetzung von deutschen Artikeln für die englischsprachige Wikipedia. Mehr Informationen findest du auf meiner Benutzerseite bei der englischsprachigen Wikipedia."

De728631 (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much for the info, that's a good start. Also, thanks for the bare-bones userpage. I'm probably going to be making small edits (correcting dates, adding links, images, etc.) and wanted to be clear that I would be doing so "in the blind", in case I accidentally make a grammar error along the way. I'll leave textual changes to users such as yourself.

Your link to Nunn landed straight on a German error message of some sort (probably stating that the page requested is not available for preview) but if you scroll to page 31, you've hit paydirt. Thanks!! Could you be so kind as to provide translations of the volume titles? I can make the educated guess that Vol. 1 is "Anatomy and Physiology" ... that one's kindda obvious, Vol. 2 is "(something) Medical Texts?" ... and then it gets progressively worse for me from there. Vol. 3 "(Something), (something) and art??" Vol. 9 is totally beyond me, though I think I can pick out Bibliography, so that looks to be an end-matter volume.

Also, thanks for the link on "habilitation" ... a concept that is totally lacking in North American academia, though apparently pretty much standard in Europe. On this side of the Atlantic, there is nothing after a PhD, except perhaps another PhD or the Nobel Prize. I appreciate your sharing not only help with the language, but also the cultural differences, as well. As for the background of the authors, I actually would expect them to be primarily of linguistic background, rather than medical, though working with medical consultants. The problem of the Egyptian texts is that all knowledge of the language was completely lost, (other than Coptic) and everything we know comes from trying to reconstruct the language. It's been noted that a major problem in trying to translate these texts is that sometimes words in a professional context have a more precise, nuanced meaning than when used in ordinary conversation. So while we may have ample evidence for a certain word, it's not so clear that the meaning still applies in a medical text. I think this is the reason why the Grundriss der Medizin der alten Ägypter was so highly spoken of, that it brought that level of insight to the texts, helping Egyptologists better understand what the texts do and do not say. In the early years of Egyptology, interpretations tended to be rather loose and fanciful, reading many things into the texts that simply wasn't there except in their fertile imaginations.

I understand that there is a new generation of translations being made that build upon the scholarship of the "Grundriss", and that no modern translation, in any language, should be done without a thorough review of that German work. For this reason, I do believe the Grundriss is worthy on an article in its own right, at least a bare-bones stub that can be expanded by an expert later. One question that remains unanswered is which texts, exactly, are included in the "Grundriss"? Most references I've found typically list a dozen texts or collections of texts, but they tend to differ on which ones they list, and which they ignore. About 10 texts are consistent from list to list, and are the "core" texts, if you will, but there's always one or two that varies from source to source.

And lastly, thanks for the additional references. The one on Ptolemaic Egypt refers to the Greek era after the conquest of Alexander the Great, and is outside the scope of what is usually termed "Ancient Egypt" ... but of course, once I've wrapped up the Ancient Egyptian era, the Greek era comes next, and it'll be interesting to note how the two cultures influenced each other in a Greek speaking Egypt.

My level of detail is going to go down to working on the articles concerning each of the papyri and those of the major players in each of their stories. I'm not going to attempt to go into the Egyptian language itself, relying solely on English translations to draft a summary of their contents. Some texts seem to be fairly described, while others seem to be written with some form of modern bias. As a historian, I find myself reminding folks that we cannot judge the ancients by our terms, but rather, we must judge them by their own ... often very different from ours. I'm seeking to keep the descriptions of the contents fair and neutral.

Likewise, I'm not going to learn German for this project, but I do want to give German works and their authors due credit for their contributions. This is where you come in. I've already started the process of taking some of the better features of the French versions of the articles, and bringing them to the English, and vice versa. Perhaps, working together, we may do the same with the German. But of course, I do want to be respectful of your time and the fact that you're on another project ... so I will be most appreciating of what you can do, and understanding of what you can not.

So in closing, thanks again so much for your help! Hi-storian (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I made a subpage on my user account where we can continue our exchange. Please see User:De728631/Ancient Egyptian medicine. De728631 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What is "historical present"?

I question the removal of an entry I added on List of rail accidents (2010-2019), as there is nothing trivial. But along that is a comment that mentioned "historical present". What is that?--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see historical present. It refers to telling past events by using present tense as if the events were just happening. This a widely used method for creating chronicles and historic accounts.

Apart from that, there is more or less consensus that we don't list "simple" level crossing incidents in these railway articles because such incidents are hardly notable per WP:GNG and tend to happen quite often so they are actually nothing special. De728631 (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

user:Eberspaecher

2013-08-21T17:42:50 De728631 (talk | contribs) blocked Eberspaecher (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Causeblock)

Hi! I suggest the block was because of missing user verification, right? I am OTRS supporter and according to ticket 2013022010007105 the user is verified and may be unblocked. So please unblock the user. Thank you very much, Doc Taxon (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

As you can see from the talk page I blocked the account because it violates our username policy. Anyone from Eberspächer could use this generic account which makes it a potential multi-user account. We don't allow that at the English Wikipedia. Company names are allowed as elements of a user name but then the user name always needs another individual part. So even if the account was verified to belong to Eberspächer it can't be used in its current form. Instead of renaming the account they can just create a new one for a single individual employee. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo! Vielen Dank für Deine Erklärungen. Das kann ich dann so der Benutzerin übermitteln. Ich wünsche Dir einen schönen Sonntag. Doc Taxon (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Last Triumph deleted?

Hello! We are a LLC from Minnesota called Last Triumph. We are the world's first certified B Corp record label and music group. Please help us get our page up and stay up so it doesn't get deleted. You can visit our website at http://www.lasttriumph.com Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JarodHadaway (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable publications by third-party sources. I'm sorry but this is not the yellow pages or an indiscriminate collection of artists and companies. Once your business and band has become significant and notable someone else may eventually write an article about you based on in-depth coverage of your activities. Please read also what I wrote on your talk page about conflicts of interest. In general, we strongly discourage writing articles about one's own business. De728631 (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Explanations

Let me explain about the editings in the page The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.I removed the wikitable (which says the wins and nominations of the third Hobbit film) from this page because it has no point to exist. What is the reason of the existence of this wikitable in the page The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies;There is a special page (this page is a wikitable generally) about the Accolades of the entire Hobbit film trilogy named List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series.Also, there is no wikitable about the wins and nominations of the two previous Hobbit films in both pages, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.I think it's enough the existence of the page List of accolades received by The Hobbit film series.It covers in section of the awards for the hpobbit film trilogy. Did you understand what I am saying?

If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.212.188 (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ariocarpus (sp.) lophophora

I was about to curate this new page, but I think you got there first :) It isn't a synonym, it is just a mistake. There is no such species. I think it should be deleted completed, but it seems to have gone beyond my capacity to curate, having been renamed. Lithopsian (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If the name is a plain mistake, you may want to nominate the redirect at WP:RFD. Then we can get rid of it. De728631 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I reverted my redirect and nominated the page (I don't dare calling it an article) for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariocarpus lophophora. De728631 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs by Thi2014

Hello De728631. Another block might be in order for Thi2014, who has continued to create unsourced BLPs after his/her block expired. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I've blocked him for a month. De728631 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Back at it again. See WP:ANI#Thi2014 still creating unsourced BLPs and removing maintenance tags. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Request a translation

Hello De728631. I would like for an article to be translated in German from English. It is a short article but I don't know German. Could you please help me with the translation? Irene000Irene000 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Irene000 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you De728631 (talk) for getting back to me. I am new here so I do not know if it is indeed translation what I need. Actually, I want a page created on German wiki. The page must be linked to an English article. I can create the page but I don't know German so I cannot replace the text etc. I need you to provide me with a German translation if it is possible and then I think I can create the page. Can you help me?Irene000 (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

False Accusations of Libel

Hey buddy, I have a fun idea, let's not accuse me with false accusations of deliberate vandalism of articles. I'd appreciate it if you'd revert your hasty and blindingly feverish undo of my edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Herodotus

Thanks -Editguy111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of Undo

I am going to revert your undo on the Scythians article since my edit is attested by the source material. Are you okay with this?

-Editguy111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit is NOT attested by the source material, see here. Do not restore it. De728631 (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Repurposing of redirect page Great Darkness

Check out the most recent edit (from 9 months ago): Great Darkness: Difference between revisions

There only seems to be about one article using it: Battle_of_the_Pelennor_Fields#Background, and that's (as originally intended) about LoTR - not mid-century Quebec politics. One could change that sole use to point into Treebeard#Literature, thus orphaning the redirect entirely. (In fact, one could create a sub-subsection or anchor about Great Darkness in the Treebeard article, so that any link in was more relevant...).

But since you merged the original content into Treebeard in Sep'10, I thought I'd bring this radical repurposing to your attention in case you had a better idea. I suspect that the issues are above my paygrade.

Hope this helps,

AHMartin (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for notice. I think I'm going to revert this change of target and place a hatnote at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields article. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

Frisia
... you were recipient no. 533 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. De728631 (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Great Darkness listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Darkness. Since you had some involvement with the Great Darkness redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been four years, today.

Wishing De728631 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Four years since? I didn't even keep track... De728631 (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, De728631. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

ODAS

Wondered if you could comment at Talk:ODAS#Duplicate links, thanks. Mathglot (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flensburger-Brauerei-Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flensburger-Brauerei-Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Danke...

... für ihren Danke wegen Talking Gravestones of Amrum. Interessant, nicht? Sca (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's fascinating. This type of gravestones is not limited to Amrum though, but can also be found on the neighbour island Föhr. See e.g. commons:Category:Gravestones in Süderende. I think I should now translate de:Sprechende Grabsteine (Föhr). De728631 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Now at Talking Gravestones of Föhr. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sca: I nominated our two articles at DYK. Feel free to write an alternative hook if you like, but the I think term "talking gravestone" is catchy enough. De728631 (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Fabelhaft. (I hope this doesn't inspire some entrepreneur to create gravestones that actually 'talk' via recordings by the deceased.) Sca (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Demmin - book

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/politische-buecher/selbstmordepidemie-1945-ein-manisch-depressives-volk-13501602.html Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Screenshot Turf Wars.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot Turf Wars.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Mount Pisgah from Black Balsam Knob 2007.jpg

• I am the author of this file. It it not clear to me how to indicate this, eg what template, etc. Robert Badgett 19:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Badgettrg: Thank you for the feedback. I'm going to add this information to the file now but next time you upload an image you created yourself, please be sure that you either write a brief statement like "I am the photographer" or use the {{own}} template. De728631 (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rama-rama-re-20160830103529-15303.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rama-rama-re-20160830103529-15303.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Talking Gravestones of Amrum

On 30 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Talking Gravestones of Amrum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Talking Gravestones of Amrum and their counterparts on Föhr (example pictured) display detailed biographies of the deceased? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Talking Gravestones of Amrum), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Talking Gravestones of Föhr

On 30 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Talking Gravestones of Föhr, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Talking Gravestones of Amrum and their counterparts on Föhr (example pictured) display detailed biographies of the deceased? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Talking Gravestones of Föhr), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Great article, enjoyed that one! I've recently started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. I was thinking of creating Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Germany) or a 5000 one based on Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). It's doing very well because it has regular editors to make it work. The entries can then feed into the main Europe Challenge. Would 1000 or 2000 or 5000 Challenge be welcome for Germany? A way to see content improvement mainly but new creations welcome too. If interested and you can get some support for a German national challenge I'll start it. Might be a way to motivate content improvements from more people. Something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon might fuel the drive and get articles improved on Germany and the rest of Europe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sprechende Grabsteine

Looks like our talking gravestones got over 10,000 views yesterday. Nice. Sca (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sca: Wow. I didn't check the latest statistics but that is impressive. What do you think about Blofeld's challenges in the section right above? Apparently the Germany 5000 thing got two interested editors but I'm too busy with other stuff. But maybe that's something for you? De728631 (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No opinion. I don't concern myself with Wiki contests, awards and that sort of thing, I'm afraid. Sca (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"Not implausible"

What do you mean by reverting me on I'm Comming Out/Mo' Money Mo' Problems? Who spells or would be spelling Coming with two "m"s? As I wrote in the rationale, the user who created it did so because the website that announced the track listing was unreliable and misspelt several titles. I'm Coming Out/Mo' Money Mo' Problems exists, so there is no reason for this to exist. Ss112 16:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112:Redirects are also meant to cover such misspellings (WP:POFR), and if there's a website out there that uses this title there's a good likelihood that some people would write "comming" with a double m to search the song on Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The website later deleted the page, and it was not a popular website nor a notable or reliable one. The article also misspelt True Colors as "Tue Colors", and that page was deleted. Pageviews Analysis shows the only visits besides one when it was created in August have been in the last few days, most likely since I tagged it for deletion and have visited it a few times myself. Ss112 05:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

If you think the redirect is useless, please feel free to nominate it at WP:RfD. De728631 (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Physicist

This is done (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748886012&oldid=748884801) because of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748881526&oldid=748880878) from this summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748880252&oldid=748879416). Also look into Talk:Physicist#Suggestion, if you can block the article temporarily reverting any edits by 109.78.9.237 would be kind and less frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.18.84 (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

MusikAnimal has protected the page. De728631 (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi De728631.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Mr. Vernon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 동해문화예술관, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, De728631. You have new messages at Mr. Vernon's talk page.
Message added 01:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, De728631. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:People, after which named in honor asteroids

Hello De728631 I just did not want a long time in the articles was the name with strongly marked errors, if the majority would vote for the name of Category:People with asteroids named after them, ... And its subcategories to Category:Scientists with asteroids named after them and Category: Speculative fiction writers with asteroids named after them, or other names, it will be possible to rename. But to me they seem to be less accurate and correct, although, plus of alternative names - short of them.

P.S. And you could not do a redirect from the old categories, if necessary ? With respect.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if your intentions were good, this was totally out of line. Please see the comments by other editors made at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 19. De728631 (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

De728631 At that moment I was guided by them (comments by other editors). Everyone said that the previous name wrong "Category:People, after which named in honor asteroids". And two users and I chose the name "Category:People who have asteroids named after them":

"The current name is terrible, and almost anything would be an improvement. How about Category:People who have asteroids named after them? StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Fine by me. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)"

But now the majority leaning toward a different option "Category:People with asteroids named after them". I am waiting for you to summarize the discussion results..--Yasnodark (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I won't sum up or close the discussion because I am an active participant. Closing a discussion while one is actively involved in the matter is considered bad practice and would only lead to a new assessment. It needs to be summed up by an uninvolved admin. This request and your early creation of the new category pages makes me think you might want to read Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Deletion_discussions to learn the basic rules about deletion discussions. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry please, I just noticed that you are support one of the options.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:TheGracefulSlick

Would you consider raising the level of protection to extended confirmed? It seems that this would be the best option for now. Dustin (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done De728631 (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for complying! This constant rollbacking was probably more a game for the vandal than anything else. I'm glad that it's over with. Dustin (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope so too, but judging from the protection log this must've been going on for months now. :P De728631 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I forgot about User talk:Sro23... I'd keep an eye on that page, and maybe consider protecting it too. Dustin (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I'll put him on my watchlist. De728631 (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Zeno

Please see Talk:Zeno, señor de Vizcaya. Given that this page is the creation of a banned user and not a single of the cited sources is considered reliable by modern historians, this page shouldn't even exist, let alone be sacrosanct. The problem is, historians don't waste time going through all of the old sources and saying what is made up, there being too much nonsense and time is too valuable - they just quit referring to the information. A Google Books search shows not a single book from the 20th or 21st centuries that have this person in them. 50.37.101.176 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know that this had been created by a sockpuppet. While the sources do look reliable to me, I have still tagged the page for speedy deletion. If that is denied, you may want to nominate it for a deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. 50.37.101.176 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah well, it seems that too many people have already edited the page because the article was found to be uneligible for speedy deletion only because of sockpuppetry. I have now opened a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard to hear some other opinions regarding the quality of the sources. De728631 (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hannes Tiedemann is first page I created with so much content at hand. I appreciate your notes of missing cites (which I've corrected) and help with the cites themselves. I hope I didn't muck anything up when I edited for the corrections. 🙄 Shen97 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I made some more edits because the bit about Franklin Castle you got from their Facebook page was phrased a bit too close to the original text. All in all the article looks much better now. De728631 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Frage zur Zuverlässigkeit

Hallo,

Ich möchte nur noch einmal bekräftigen, dass mein Anliegen nicht darin besteht den publizierten Artikel im "Gegenwind" von Wikipedia zu entfernen oder zu diskreditieren, nur weil die Extrapolation der Zahlen hoch angesetzt wurden. Im Gegenteil, ich möchte die Glaubwürdigkeit der angegebenen Hypothese mit anderen Quellen verifizieren. In keiner mir bekannten literarische Werke zur sexuellen Gewalt, wurden solche Extrapolationen von gleichem Ausmaß gemacht. Ursula Schele wird folglich auch nirgends namenswert erwähnt. Ich habe bereits eine Email an die Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung geschrieben, da sie eine Liste sämtlicher Publikationen bereitstellt und gemeinsame Arbeiten mit anderen Verläge und Autoren ausweisen könnte. Viele Grüsse zur späten Stunde. Raynolo (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Alles klar, das hatte ich schon aus dem Beitrag am schwarzen Brett herausgelesen. Leider habe ich auf die schnelle auch keine Quellenangaben zu den Zahlen finden können. Man sollte ja meinen, dass Frau Schele als anerkannte Beraterin sich mit den möglichen biologischen Folgen einer Vergewaltigung auskennt, aber dieses 1/10-Verhältnis sollte man hier bei Wikipedia schon besser belegen. Einen nächtlichen Gruß zurück. De728631 (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die Rückantwort. Ich hatte bis anhin leider die Impression, dass der Artikel von Ihnen ohne Einwand und unter Berücksichtigung sämtlicher, nachweisbarer, bestehender und oder anerkannte wissenschaftliche Publikationen zum Thema, einfach als bare Münze hingenommen wird. Ich begrüsse daher Ihre Bedenken bzgl. weitere Quellenangaben und Verifizierung. Es wäre wünschenswert wenn Sie das auch am "schwarzen Brett" bekräftigen könnten. Ich wünsche eine gute Nacht. Raynolo (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Weitere Recherchen

Guten Abend,

Ich konnte bis jetzt leider noch keine weiteren Querverweise zur möglichen Studie von Frau Schele ausfindig machen. Eine nahestehende Kommilitonin riet mir ich solle im Intranet des Clio, unter H-Soz-Kult meine Recherchen zum Thema fortzuführen. Unter anderem ist mir dabei diese Rezension zum Buch Eroberungen. Sexuelle Gewalttaten und intime Beziehungen deutscher Soldaten in der Sowjetunion 1941-1945 von der Historikerin Regina Mühlhäuser aufgefallen. Rezensiert wurde es von den beiden Historikern, Frau Springmann und Herrn Ossietzky von der Universität Oldenburg. Ich habe mir dann sogleich auch das Buch in der Mediathek ausgeliehen, in der Hoffnung weitere Anhaltspunkte oder gar eine Bekräftigung der aufgestellten Hypothese machen zu können. Beste Grüße Raynolo (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sehr schön, dann wünsche ich viel Erfolg. Wir sind hier bei en.wikipedia übrigens angehalten, auch auf den persönlichen Diskussionseiten Englisch zu benutzen, damit sich im Zweifelsfall auch andere Benutzer beteiligen können. In diesem Sinne: have a good night. De728631 (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Alles klar, ich werde mir beim nächsten mal Mühe geben die Diskussion auch auf Englisch fortzusetzen. Thank you, the same to you! Raynolo (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I would like to discuss about something here.