Hello, Ulf Heinsohn! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. We're so glad you're here! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism 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 • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Battle of Berlin (air), did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Skarebo (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for uploading too often. I prepared the text, used the show function, did my corrections, loaded, but then found again and again mistakes. I will improve that.

1) I added the New Synagogue, because it is one of the architectural landmarks destroyed in the Battle of Berlin and a well known one, at least much better known than the fascist-style buildings of the Japanese and Italian embassies, who in fact survived the war in much better shape than the Memorial church and the Synagogue.

2) I wonder why you added, the New Synagogue was used by the Wehrmacht. I don't think that that was known to the RAF bomber command. Like this you insinuate the New Synagogue was hit on porpuse.

I simply think, i'd say I know, the way of doing air raids in the WW II was much less target-safe than we assume by our today experience. This is, what the list including the Memorial Church, the Zoo, the Synagogue tells us. Otherwise the bomber squad would have propably spared the British embassy, even though it was closed due to the fact that Germany and Britain were at war. Who knows if the British embassy was only sealed or even illegally used for some other purpose. What ever it was, probably unknown to the RAF, its destruction shows the lack of target-safety.

3) I changed the typical German passive-structered sentence "were killed, injured and made homeless" into a English-suited active sentence "the Battle of Berlin killed, injured etc." Why? Because this way of saying it names who was riding, and who ridden, meaning who or what was active, and who or what passive. The typical German-style passive veils that, as if people rather died, than that the air raids killed them.

Sorry for the long comments. Best wishes Ulf HeinsohnUlf Heinsohn (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that you find the rewording and change in scope and change placement in the introduction in keeping with the thought you were trying to convey. My first reaction had been to undo your edit since it didn't appear to be related to the article, but then I realized the point you were trying to get across. —PētersV (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to change as to its scope. To my taste you made a new strong extra statements. My main point was: The Free City of Danzig was not restored in the war's aftermath like the 3 other Baltic states. But a restoration is even out of discussion because of the almost total expulsion and killing of the original citizens. I posted this in Occupation of Baltic States page because this could have happened to the Baltic states as well, with the deportations, killings and settlements by Soviet citizens during the occupation. Especially Estonia and Latvia were on the way to be majorised by anti-indipendentists. You got me right in that.

My second point was: By my formulation I didn't argue ethno-specific as to who wants independence, but as to who was extinguished for there mere reason of being Baltic. My formulation allowed that all inhabitants of the Baltic Soviet Republics, who fought for their independence are equally honoured, regardless of cultural or language background. I can imagine that only few inhabitants of the Baltic states with non-Baltic heritage background wished and fought for Baltic independence. But there were some for sure, maybe I am even wrong and there were many. I simply don't know.

Your formulation insinuates that it would be a matter of culture and language to wish independence. I think it is a matter of mere opinion regardless of one's own language and culture. I may well be an ethnic and culturally proud Russian and be pro Baltic independence because that is healing a historic wrong or because I am more confident in a democratic and prosperous development under the Baltic roof than under the Russian or, or, or …

Best wishes Ulf HeinsohnUlf Heinsohn (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No insinuation meant. As I've stated elsewhere it's what a person does that makes them a good Baltic citizen, not their ethnicity. On the other hand, to the point about Danzig and Königsberg, once completely Russified or Polonified, there was little impetus to return to their pre-war state as the predominant ethnolinguistic and cultural identities were those of the "replacements." In the case of the Baltics, preservation of culture was preservation of the state.

   National aspirations take their power from ethno-linguistic and cultural identity. We see it in today's conflicts. —PētersV (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Not to discount territorial identities, religious identities... PētersV (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's gone in any event; in truth, it was a commentary. If you can find a scholarly source that makes the comparison and reference it, the it would no longer be commentary but a scholarly comparison. —PētersV (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just rewritten your recent addition to Cathedral, which was hopelessly entangled with Scotland. It's easier to make two sentences that add qualifiers and hope the reader can make sense of it! Would you please read what I have done, to see if I have in fact captured the sense of your intentions.

Also, the article is specifically about functional cathedrals. While the mention of the three Berlin Doms is appropriate to the explanation, I must ask you about Ulm Minster. This sentence is not about churches which are sometimes called "cathedral" mistakenly. It is specifically about functioning cathedrals that are known as "minster", rather than "cathedral". As far as I know, Ulm doesn't function as a cathedral. Can you put me right about this? If it doesn't function as a cathedral, then it is in the same class as Beverley Minster and a few others in England which are cathedral-sized abbey buildings, but not cathedrals, and not within the scope of the article. If it does function as a cathedral, then please put it back. Amandajm (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the textual improvement, I like much better this way.

About Ulm. You are right, Ulm's minster has never been the seat of a bishop. I was seduced to add it because there is Berne, and the minster of Berne has never been the seat of bishop too, neither is it now. I will replace Berne and put Essen and Freiburg, which are both minsters now serving as cathedrals.

Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Johann Franz Encke worked, so it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Unionhawk (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Danish monarchs]]
[[Category:Hypothetical second category]]

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I did not offend you, not answering you. I was not too much into the Estridsen dynasty background, I hope somebody familiar with it will take over. I am more specialised in subjects of the Prince-Bishopric of Bremen, thus I happened to have to deal with a member of that dynasty who ascended the Bremian see. In Polish and German there are complete articles about the House of Estridsen de:Haus Estridsson and pl:Estrydsenidzi, which is too much for me to translate them - not even speaking any Polish -, neither I am an expert in it, who read printed sources about the dynasty. I only introduced the category, thinking that would evoke the editing by some expert. I agree to the categorisation under Danish monarchs. Maybe the House of Oldenburg also deserves to be subcategorised or mentioned under the Category Danish Monarchs. Best regards, Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I don't know much about the Estridsens either. I'm just sweeping the floor here. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ulf Heinsohn! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Why do you link to Archbishops of Mentz in the Prince-Bishop article? The Archbishops of Mentz article is just a redirect to Archbishopric of Mainz. Mentz also does not appear to be in common usage anymore. I pointed the link in the Prince-Bishop article directly to the ultimate target of the redirect. imars (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Shortcut WP:HWY
- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiProject Highways - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi, Ulf Heinsohn, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the International Highways WikiProject! The Highways WikiProject is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, road portal and Wikiprojects, to do with anything related to International Roads. This includes supporting existing regional road WikiProjects and fostering the development of new WikiProjects.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ulf Heinsohn, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you "corrected" the name of Frederik 6.'s mistress? It is Bente, Benthe or Benedicte. No Julia here! CS

	You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Eurovision!
	Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project. We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like Eurovision and facilitate team work in the development of Eurovision articles. We also publish a monthly newsletter that keeps you up to date on project, member, and Eurovision news.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
	I hope you accept! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ulf, thanks for your edits, please be aware that in the English wiki German quarters are not hyphened Hamburg-Harvestehude is Harvestehude, Hamburg or only Harvestehude. Thanks and happy editing. Sebastian scha. (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work on Israel Jacobson. Great job! Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have the wrong person. I have never had any discussion about San Marino. Can you point out where I said this. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ulf, thanks for the work you did on Anna Maria Franziska of Saxe-Lauenburg; it's marvellous! -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikitext of Immanuel Church (Tel Aviv-Yafo) is far too long but this is mainly due to ridiculous repetition of references. Please study this edit (ignore the destroyed Hebrew). Where a ref is identical we use <ref name="foo">text</ref> the first time and <ref name="foo" /> for subsequent uses. I do not recommend the use of "ibid" because subsequent edits by others such as simple re-ordering of sentences can cause utter confusion. But my "Eisler113" and "Eisler115" refs should give an hint of one approach. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you included Agnes of Habsburg as a Duchess of Saxe-Lauenburg when she was the Duchess of Saxe-Wittenberg. You can't included Regent consorts or hereditary princesses that will throw everthing off. ie. Augustus, Elector of Saxony was the regent of his nephew Frederick William I, Duke of Saxe-Weimar, yet his wife Anne of Denmark wasn't a Duchess of Saxe-Weimar; the same Frederick William I was the regent Christian II, Elector of Saxony yet his wife Anna Marie of the Palatinate-Neuburg was never Electress of Saxony. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see what you mean, but that would only make Agnes co-Duchess of Saxony with her sister-in-law Ingeborg. Maybe you could put them together on the Duchess of Saxony section.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ulf Heinsohn. You have new messages at Favonian's talk page.
Message added 21:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Favonian (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ulf Heinsohn. I need a little help. I saw that Albert III, Duke of Saxe-Wittenberg was link for two different Albert of Saxe-Wittenberg and seperated them into Albert III of Saxe-Wittenberg, Duke of Lüneburg and Albert IV, Duke of Saxe-Wittenberg. But the question I have to ask you is was Albert III of Saxe-Wittenberg, Duke of Lüneburg actually a ruling Duke of Saxe-Wittenberg alongside his uncle because Albert's father Otto was older than Wenceslas I and that would make Albert the heir of his uncle Rudolf II not Wenceslas. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do you remember me? I helped you with the Duchess of Saxe-Lauenburg on the List of Saxon consorts. I notice your work on List of dukes of Schleswig and List of rulers of Schleswig-Holstein and also the succession boxes on each rulers. Well I was wondering if you have time to fix up the List of Margraves of Meissen and List of rulers of Thuringia . --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed on a lot of your articles about the Dukes of Saxe-Lauenburg you plsce saxon consort in the spouse type when spouse or consort would just be fine. It makes no sense to say "On 9 April 1668 Julius Francis married in Sulzbach Hedwig of the Palatinate (Sulzbach, *15 April 1650 – 23 November 1681*, Hamburg), daughter of Christian Augustus, Count Palatine of Sulzbach, making her the Saxon consort." There was more than one Duke of Saxony during this time and their wives were all "Saxon consorts" which is just a general term I made up for these women.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Well deserved for the informative and comprehensive Mount Zion Cemetery article. Keep up the good work! Chesdovi (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you create name this article Catherine of Brunswick and Lunenburg? I know this is the accurate way to translate "Braunschweig-Lüneburg" but the most common form seem to be "Brunswick-Lüneburg" not Brunswick and Lunenburg.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ulf, can you please fix this? --de:user:Nb 18:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.52.165.183 (talk) [reply]

I think you might want to turn off the "mark all edits as minor" option under "my preferences" ("Editing" I think, though maybe it's got to be done on MediaWiki), since most of your edits are not minor.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ulf, thanks for helping with the links and the (medieval?) German in this article! --Bermicourt (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to split the list. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a separate 'Former Roman Catholic dioceses in Germany', category. I've split the list and moved all of your information over there. The other list is for the current, active dioceses. This way people can make changes and updates as they occur without having to worry about the other stuff.

I love your list - just I think this is a better place for it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename fine by me.

Hi Ulf, thank you for your helpful clarification of this classic medieval feud. I have slighted amended your clarifying words about the English translations which I hope portrays the actual situation. Whilst your original words made sense to me, I felt it better to put the translation in quotation marks rather than imply this is an accepted name from the literature. Nevertheless all your amendments are most welcome and certainly I am clearer than I was before. Gruß. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches in Berlin bombed by the WWII Allied air forces, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf, while you are correct that convent is an accurate term, are you aware that you are not using it in the correct technical sense for the medieval community. While the community itself is called a "conventus", which, by the way, is also used for communities of monks, the institution itself was an abbey, and should be called such, until speaking of the time of its conversion to a Stift. In that sense, use of the term convent prior to that event is historically inaccurate. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Daniel,
  before I wrote the entry I thought about the name and looked in my Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, which says under the entry «convent»: (1) society of women (called nuns) living apart from others in the service of God. … (2) building(s) in which nuns live and work …
  So my thoughts were the following:
  (1) It needs one name, since the institution functioned from its start until its end without major change, nor technical, nor personal, as a place of worship and contemplation for noble unmarried women of certain families (the order of services was not majorly changed by the Reformation, chasubles etc. remained in use); as a feudal lord to its socage farmers etc.; as a territorial entity ranking as an estate with a vote in the diets of the prince-archbishopric; I wanted to give it one naming fitting for all its existence. The fact that the religion was first Roman Catholic, and than Lutheran had never been a major issue (except during the subjection and occupation of the prince-archbishopric, when the convent was dissolved), since the religion would of course be the same which was the dominant faith among the families funding the institution, donating to it, protecting it militarily and whose female relatives entered it. It is unlikely that the institution had ever formed part of the Cistercian Order the integration into supraregional entities was loose or even absent, but it had strong regional (prince-archiepiscopal) ties.
  (2) Convent fits to be the term for the one name. The term convent (a) takes up the Latin naming, used in seals and most of the documents, (b) according to the Oxford Dictionary it describes a monastery of nuns and its buildings (this is why I chose it, and how I used it, for buildings and the institution) and (c) the term fits even a Lutheran stift.
  (3) the term Himmelpforten Convent avoids a double naming with the former Himmelpforten Abbey of monks under a chairman called abbot, located near Hasserode in the Harz Mountains. The term Himmelpforten Abbey as head line for this entry at issue would gloss over the fact, besides its double meaning of a church building and the institution as a whole, that this Porta Coeli rather used to be a priory (like Preetz Priory, because of its small size (small number of members), with the term prioress prevailing over the term abbess in smaller societies of women in service for God.
  Best wishes
  Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ulf Heinsohn,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Evangelical Church in Baden for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. AlanS (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ulf Heinsohn:, I've withdrawn the nomination for speedy deletion. However the church is still in need of referencing. At present their is only one. AlanS (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

places of worship
Thank you, user who studied in Berlin and Tel Aviv, for quality articles such as Israelitisches Familienblatt and List of places of worship in Berlin, for adding categories, interwiki-links and redirects to churches and historic people, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1023 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five years ago, you were recipient no. 1023 of Precious! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Drakenburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brunswick. 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) 08:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Norbert Wollheim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smart money. 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) 09:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, American–German Colony , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carl Ritschl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Province of Pomerania. 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) 10:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Von der Decken family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danish crown. 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) 10:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi, The second building Before the first building? Berlin Cathedral 1451 (first building), ca. 1345 (2nd bldg) Kasir ^talk 16:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Kasir,
yes, as described in the wiki entry, the church was first founded as palace chapel and got its first location within the Berlin Palace, however, later, this church was elevated to a collegiate church and thus the small palace chapel was considered unfit, so the collegiate church moved into the older, but bigger building of the St. Paul Church, previously built and owned by the Dominican friars, who again were moved to Brandenburg upon Havel. The naming of the collegiate church was transferred to the former St. Paul's and the college canons took possession of that building, so that the old friary and its name St. Paul's disappeared, while the younger establishment moved from its original location into its second, but older than its first location. Much later again, its next move brought the collegiate church into its next, but then newly erected, third location and later to its present fourth location and then again newly erected building. Confusing but true. Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Jesus Church (Berlin-Kaulsdorf)#Partial merge to Heinrich Grüber. I started a stub article on Heinrich Grüber, then before expanding it checked for potential inbound links. I found a mass of good material you had put into Jesus Church (Berlin-Kaulsdorf). Any problem if I merge the biographical material into the Heinrich Grüber article? I would attribute you in the edit summary and on both talk pages, and leave behind a summary. I feel a bit uncomfortable with a large change like that without any discussion, though. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinrich Grüber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Provost. 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) 12:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Heinrich Grüber, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evangelical Church Centre Kronsberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soest. 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) 14:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf, thanks for the improvement of the Holy Cross Church, Lehre article. We'll keep your change, but I just wanted to note that Brunswick and Braunschweig are one and the same, whether talking about the city or region. Brunswick is the English pronunciation and spelling of Braunschweig. Thanks again. Ks03 (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eleazar Heilbut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kehilla. 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) 09:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ulf Heinsohn. 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)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danzig (region), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puck. 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) 09:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danziger Höhe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Straszyn. 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) 10:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ulf Heinsohn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juliusz Józef Dinder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Provost (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ulf Heinsohn. 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]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited J. F. Oberlin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Worms (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Max Samuel, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "too long DYK" (a hook can be too long, but the article has no limits). Re his ethnicity, good points, but I suggest keeping such discussion on article's talk for future reference. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Max Samuel, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Market Square (Lviv), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rynek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 13:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for your work on Wikipedia. I marked this for clarification of the word "rimulate" as I could find no definition. Perhaps you can fix? --LilHelpa (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rostock Inheritance Agreement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absolutism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, administrator here. You are marking almost all of your edits as "minor", but almost all of them are not minor. That's not allowed. The definition of a minor edit is at Help:Minor edit and you will see that is more like the common notion of "trivial". Please let me know if you have been doing it consciously or it has been appearing as the default for you. (If it's the latter I need to get it fixed.) In any case, please stop doing that. Zero^talk 03:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danke schön für das Denkzeichen meiner Beteiligung, liebe Grüße Ulf Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gerda, thank you, what a nice recognition.
Best wishes, Ulf Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 7 § Category:Buildings and structures by decade of destruction on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 17:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with changing destruction to demolition, however, demolition is a civil human activity, while destruction would cover also losses of buildings and structures by natural events or wars. Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]