User talk:Ermenrich: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Competence required: Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient notification template
Line 169: Line 169:
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
|-
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of {{{briefreason}}}. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of high quality input. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
|}
|}
[[User:{{{nominator}}}]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
[[User:Krakkos]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
:I nominate Ermenrich to be Editor of the Week. Although becoming an editor as late as March 2018, Ermenrich has already left a strong mark on Wikipedia. Ermenrich has a PhD in [[medieval German literature]], and has created several high-quality articles related to this field of expertise, including [[Nibelungenklage]], [[Lied vom Hürnen Seyfrid]], [[Biterolf und Dietleib]], [[Ermenrichs Tod]], [[Dietrich und Wenezlan]], [[Eckenlied]], [[Rabenschlacht]], and [[Dietrichs Flucht]]. Articles on this subject which Ermenrich has improved significantly include [[Legends about Theodoric the Great]], [[Sigurd]], [[Gunther]], [[Sigenot]], [[Brunhild]], [[Gudrun]] and [[Nibelungenlied]]. Ermenrich has also made substantial contributions to articles on other important subjects, such as [[Huns]], [[The Exodus]], [[Pontius Pilate]], [[Hyksos]] and [[John Demjanjuk]]. These subjects are controversial, and Ermenrich has made a great effort to ensure that such articles remain neutral and of high-quality. Ermenrich does not shy away from participating in controversial discussions, and often plays an important role in helping reach a consensus.
:{{{nominationtext}}}
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
<pre>{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</pre>
<pre>{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</pre>
Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213;[[User:Buster7|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Buster7'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Buster7|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 15:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213;[[User:Buster7|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Buster7'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Buster7|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 15:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:40, 24 January 2021

== Just copy the source code and paste it on the talk page of the user you wish to invite.

This user has been invited WikiProject Prussia please consider checking us out.

==

Kaiser Kitkat (talk)

Scholarly consensus

If many professional historians disagree with a perspective then there is no consensus. I already listed 5 authors who challenged it. What politics was he talking about exactly? 83.128.99.144 (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS/AC. And I don’t have time to check your scholars, but I doubt they’re saying Jews were always monotheists as you claim, or else they aren’t mainstream scholars but apologists.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have the time to check the sources that you shouldn't remove them nor the information based on them. They do firmly reject the view that full Monotheism was not yet fully developped and supported even before the time of Hosea. They are not apologists. Your reasoning is that scholarly souces cannot contradict your viewpoint and if they actually do then they aren't scholarly. That is circular reasoning. The sources are reliable and properly cited. At least 6 scholars have been provided that challenge your views as being undisputed facts. For the article to ignore all of them is POV. Period. To remove them seems to border on censorship. You are welcome to read the sources yourself. Meanwhile, I will add further sources to strengthen the balance of the article, if that's ok. Sergius125 (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not how it works. See wp:ONUS. Also there’s no reason to post on my talk page in addition to the article page. All article related discussion belongs there.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just dropping by to comment on the fallacy of stating the onus is on another editor to provide sources, but saying you're happy to remove that cited content, whilst openly admitting you haven't looked at the source. That isn't WP:ONUS - that's WP:OWN. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re familiar with the topic area or scholarship on it, you will/should understand why I reverted, Nick Moyes. New editors showing up claiming that they have sources showing some religiously inconvenient wp:RS/AC isn’t consensus happens all the time. His own sources say they are against consensus, as you can see at the discussion on the article. Also, Considering I’ve never edited on that article before, calling it a case of wp:own seems quite a stretch.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping we could continue our discussion on the discussion page of Yahwism as I still desire to establish consensus. I was hoping you could provide the exact quote regarding Babylonian exile that I asked for. Sergius125 (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. Wikipedia is not a place where there's a lot of instant gratification and most editors are fairly busy.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pontius Pilate

The Christianity Barnstar
For the extensive amount of effort improving Pontius Pilate. You definitely deserve this barnstar. Jerm (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jerm! I appreciate it!--Ermenrich (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a beautiful and productive New Year! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you पाटलिपुत्र, Happy Holidays to you as well!--Ermenrich (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Ermenrich, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,

★Trekker (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks *Treker! The same to you!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weihnachten - Christmas

Dear fellow,

I wish you a Wonderful Christmas and Happy editing (hopefully without re-emerging ducks :) ) on and on! Best Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@KIENGIR:, boldog Karácsonyt to you as well, old friend! Keep up the good work!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Ermenrich, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,

Wario-Man (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Babcock at Attila

Thank you, User:Ermenrich, for inviting discussion of the appropriateness of content from Babcock at the Attila article. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the Hyksos

Dear Ermenrich, as we discussed earlier in the year, I am now working on the Hyksos, trying to clarify this difficult issue. First, on the modern usage of the term itself there is a nice sentence by Manfred Bietak in the the Oxford Enclyclopedia of Ancient Egypt: "Strictly speaking, the term Hyksos should be used only for these kings [of the 15th Dynasty] and not as an ethnic designation, as introduced by the third-century BCE Greco-Egyptian historian Manetho. I believe this should settle what should be meant by the term, while also recognizing the ethnic meaning that it has taken in popular Egyptology, as Bietak recognizes himself before this sentence. Regarding the chronology and list of Hyksos kings, the problem is deep and complex. While reading the 2018 book of proceedings of the special conference on Khyan in which Egyptologists try to reconcile their recent discoveries with history, I realised that several "new" kings are now considered likely in the 15th Dynasty, including Yanassi and Sakir-Har between Khyan and Apophis. I will work on this probably throughout this coming year, and hopefully will be able to propose one or more meaningful lists of 15th Dynasty kings after that.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iry-Hor, glad you're still working on this! I actually passive-aggressively added a couple of (less authoritative) statements of wp:RS/AC to the section on the name at Hyksos, but this would seem to settle it! The dynasty truly is complicated since I guess we just don't know a lot about the Second Intermediate Period and a lot of what scholars say seems to be based on little evidence / a lot of what they used to say seems to have been based on ground historical narratives without much basis.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ß

Thank you for doing the bulk of the merge of ß. I was thinking of doing it, but I'm usually quite slow at that, so I'm happy that you beat me to it.

I also thought a bit about the Hitler passage. You made a good point that that's not even taken from the book itself, but only from the book review. If you had written so earlier, I might not have reinserted it. I've grown to see such insertions in the lede as a common phenomenon, which happened again with the usage and pseudo-definition of the term “grapheme”, which only occurs in the lede. So I just started an essay user:SebastianHelm/LEADSEED about it; let me know what you think. ◅ Sebastian 15:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SebastianHelm for removing the OR from the lead. I think your essay is a great idea and we should try to popularize it around Wikipedia. It's a problem I've frequently noticed as well.
As to the book and text, the German article contains the following:
Als die Nationalsozialisten in Deutschland im Jahr 1941 die Fraktur und sonstige gebrochene Schriften abschafften und die Antiqua als „Normal-Schrift“ einführten, wurde von den zuständigen Ministerien auch eine Abschaffung des ß in Antiqua beschlossen, da der Buchstabe im Ausland unbekannt und selten in Antiqua-Schriften vorhanden war. Hitler intervenierte aber. Aus einem Schreiben des Reichsministers der Reichskanzlei: „Der Führer hat sich für eine Beibehaltung des ‚ß‘ in der Normalschrift entschieden. Er hat sich aber gegen die Schaffung eines großen ‚ß‘ ausgesprochen. Bei der Verwendung großer Buchstaben soll das ‚ß‘ vielmehr als ‚SS‘ geschrieben werden.“[1]
As you can see it's cited to a different book, but it's unclear whether there's any commentary or if this just lists primary source documents. The book reviewed by Deutschlandfunk looks like it may actually mostly be a polemic against the Rechtschreibreform, see this passage of the review:
Gerade an diesem Punkt, an dem großen Gewicht der Sprechweise für die Rechtschreibung, setzt die am Ende des Buchs formulierte sprachwissenschaftliche Kritik der Autoren an der Reform von 1996 an. Die Ersetzung von „ß“ durch ein Doppel-s orientiert sie sich am Klang und nicht daran, dass ß auch ein Silbenende markiert. So wird aus einem Wort wie „Meßergebnis“ schnell Messer-gebnis. Und wohin es führen kann, dass die Aussprache gar nicht so einheitlich ist wie die Nationalsozialisten sie gerne gehabt hätten, zeigen recht merkwürdige, angeblich der Sprechweise folgenden Silbentrennungen. Sagt man nun Tee-nager oder Teen-ager? Sagt man voll-enden oder vol-lenden? MUSS man die Rechtschreibreform von 1996 nach der Lektüre dieses Büchleins aber nun mit anderen Augen betrachten? MUSS man sie vielleicht sogar in der direkten Tradition des Nationalsozialismus verorten? Die Autoren legen dies nahe, auch wenn dies etwas übertrieben scheint. Wichtig und verdienstvoll ist es aber auf jeden Fall, dass sie die Lücke im öffentlichen Gedächtnis geschlossen haben und das Bewusstsein dafür schärten, dass Eingriffe in die Sprache immer auch eine politische Dimension haben. (My bolding)
This is part of why I was somewhat skeptical about the addition originally. Obviously Hitler really did intervene to keep the ß, but I wonder how we can source it better and give it some better framing (i.e. given the fact that no one writes "Kautsch," how much effect did Nazi attempts to change German spelling really have?)--Ermenrich (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen "Kautsch", but I privately write “Händi”, does that mean I have to be “verortet” in the tradition of the NS regime? That sounds like they have an agenda, indeed. But regardless of the agenda of the book or its review, just grabbing the one sentence that contains the name Hitler seems very selective, too. (Maybe due to a Man bites dog effect.) It would have been more productive if the editor instead had extended the article on the topic of the book, the German orthography reform of 1996. Anyway, so what to do about the cited text? Should we change it to a translation of the one cited in dewiki? ◅ Sebastian 17:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SebastianHelm, ideally I'd like to check the source before adding it, but it does seem an improvement. German Wikipedia doesn't seem to be as strict about sourcing as the English-language version so I'm always a bit hesitant about taking anything over 1 to 1. I can try to see if I can get my hands on the book to check the reference.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, German Wikipedia is quite lax about sources; they have nothing like {{cn}}. (At least not last time I searched for it, about a year ago.) Another option would be to put the whole Hitler text in a footnote, link to that both from the minuscule and the majuscule portion, and explain in the footnote that it's only “cited in”. (That would work better with the book review text, though.) ◅ Sebastian 17:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have been following you for some years, seeing your great work on e.g. legendary characters. You are also doing some important work keeping fringe theories at bay. Would the rollback function be of use to you?--Berig (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Berig, and thank you! I think that it would, I've just never bothered to figure out how to get it! Looks like I need to request them?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can give it to you, if you want it. Confirming it is asking, isn't it? :-)--Berig (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I formally request it from you, thanks Berig!--Ermenrich (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you need to reload, but you should see it now. Good luck, and be careful with it. :-)--Berig (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much and I will, Berig!--Ermenrich (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

Ermenrich, the word "knyaz" is not a loan from the German language. It is not necessary to pass off the statement of M. Fasmer as the opinion of the majority. Noraskulk (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Religion in Carthage
added links pointing to Juno, El, Syracuse, Cronos and Triton
Tophet
added links pointing to Tyre, Syracuse and Siege of Tyre

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Holocaust Ukraine

Hi,

please check this ([1]), is this edit correct? (You've edited Demjanjuk, so hope you may evaluate this correctly). Thank You, Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR, no, I would say not. There's a long history of denying that Demjanjuk was involved in the Holocaust (begun by Demjanjuk himself), so I've reverted the edit.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moloch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see the recent edits....I have a bad feeling about this....AustrianFreedom or RichardSaringer returned and/or it may be a covert sleeping account (even the edit's ortoghrapy is very problematic)? ...I think you may use your new rollback tool...what do you think?(KIENGIR (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR, I reverted the edits, but I'm not convinced its AustrianFreedom at this point. For one thing, AustrianFreedom didn't show much sign of planning ahead, which would make having a sleeper account strange. We'll see what else the account does.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the current info on the page seems to come from AustrianFreedom, as a quick search shows and as its focus entirely on the SS would also lead one to believe. I wonder if those edits shouldn't also be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, recently after this ([2]) and this, I may hardly believe any scenario by default...(KIENGIR (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. I am not 'AustrianFreedom'. My name is Haggerty. I'm an American who has been living in Germany for over 25 years. My ancestors on one side of my family came from Glogon and I wanted to add additional information to it. I basically used the German Wikipedia article to expand the English version. That's all. Sorry if I didn't add additional references. I'm still new to this. (KH) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPHaggerty (talkcontribs) 11:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KPHaggerty, don't worry about it! If you can find reliable sources for your additions, feel free to add them back. German WP is very lax about sourcing, unfortunately.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KPHaggerty:,
sorry about my assumption, but recently we have an overdose of sockpuppeteers, POV-pushers, edit warriors and sealioners, which are really tyring our community, hence we are on alert. Just follow Ermenrich's advices, and then everything should be alright. Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Competence required

We may need another level-headed third party editor on the talkpage of Magnus the Strong.--Berig (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of high quality input. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Krakkos submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Ermenrich to be Editor of the Week. Although becoming an editor as late as March 2018, Ermenrich has already left a strong mark on Wikipedia. Ermenrich has a PhD in medieval German literature, and has created several high-quality articles related to this field of expertise, including Nibelungenklage, Lied vom Hürnen Seyfrid, Biterolf und Dietleib, Ermenrichs Tod, Dietrich und Wenezlan, Eckenlied, Rabenschlacht, and Dietrichs Flucht. Articles on this subject which Ermenrich has improved significantly include Legends about Theodoric the Great, Sigurd, Gunther, Sigenot, Brunhild, Gudrun and Nibelungenlied. Ermenrich has also made substantial contributions to articles on other important subjects, such as Huns, The Exodus, Pontius Pilate, Hyksos and John Demjanjuk. These subjects are controversial, and Ermenrich has made a great effort to ensure that such articles remain neutral and of high-quality. Ermenrich does not shy away from participating in controversial discussions, and often plays an important role in helping reach a consensus.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7  15:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Schreiben des Reichsministers und Chefs der Reichskanzlei an den Reichsminister des Innern vom 20. Juli 1941. BA, Potsdam, R 1501, Nr. 27180. Enthalten in: Der Schriftstreit von 1881 bis 1941 von Silvia Hartman, Peter Lang Verlag. ISBN 978-3-631-33050-0