Welcome!

Hello, LeaNder, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Shimgray 15:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a pity your message has no sound. I am madly in love with Scottish accents!

The titles of the article links you send sound partly familiar. But I will read them at the pace of an article a day.

LeaNder aka Kraut de Cologne

Thanks for noticing. My best work. Gzuckier 21:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the content because it was uncited. Uncited material should generally be removed (unless very common knowledge). This is especially important in cases of living people's biographies, where Wikipedia policy states: "controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." If someone can find a source AND reproduce the entire interview to give proper context, then the material should be reposted. LaszloWalrus 02:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really futile argument Laszlo. I have seen the video, I couldn't believe my eyes, my ears. Brook overtook O'Reilly on the far right. Unfortunately the links on the net have disappeared at least for me over here in Germany. Obviously it would be nice to have direct link for all the world to watch this madman. Now I definitely have a problem admittedly since the only transcript on the net is EIR/LaRouche. And I hesitate to use that source. The problem is they did not invent it LeaNder 02:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the video too, and don't dispute the transcript; the problem is that our recollections of it and a Larouche source don't count by Wikipedia policies, especially for living people. LaszloWalrus 04:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. First, I finally decided to devote Wikipedia the attention it deserves. So much I do not know about it. So I will definitely have other problems than LaRouche about whom I might be even more suspicious than I dislike the positions of Yaron Brook. After all there is a chance that Israel might see the problems in the ME much more clearly than we do over here in Europe. Frankly I dislike LaRouche's propaganda [especially the pamphlets distributed on campus by the LaRouche Youth Movements; I haven’t decided yet whom I dislike more campus watch or the LaRouchies, though.], and I did not immediately realize what corners it came from. As I was not aware the video is pretty old news by now. I can see your point in deleting the link. LeaNder 17:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with what you called your "meanderings" on Talk:Yaron Brook. The real issue is that the RfC was posted but editors who responded to the RfC didn't have a nice clean thread that stated the issue, presented all positions, and grouped the visitors' comments. This is, unfortunately, a very common problem with RfC's.

As for my user page, I was designated as a spelling champion by kizzle after I corrected one of his mistakes. He's also the one who found the "13" photo. Glad you liked it! JamesMLane t c 04:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)C[reply]

Hmmm? How did you manage to make this a subtitle, technically speaking.

Concerning my mental "meandering" disposition or my response to your critique: "The purpose of the category system is to help the reader find information. The question shouldn't be answered by hypertechnical parsing of Brook's work or of the terms of the definition." You were pushing at an open door with this comment. Before I read it, I wondered if it wouldn't be helpful to write a little summery concerning the Anti-Iraq War category discussion and put it on top of the whole section. As some kind of invitation. Leave your comment below. You don’t even need to read the whole tread. Your comment was helpful. I was a bit puzzled, admittedly. I wondered if I missed something essential.

Spelling: When I lived in London a couple of decades ago, I could never understand why so many people had problems with spelling. But meanwhile I look at my comments turning red with shame and embarrassment, so your little no. 13 champ raised my spirits considerably. Duties are piling up. LeaNder 12:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make a subtitle you use three equal signs instead of two. Open this thread in an edit window and you'll see that I typed ===RfC on Brook=== under the existing thread. You can make a subsubtitle with four equal signs: ====Spelling reminiscences====. I've never gone beyond four so I don't know if there's a point at which the software loses patience.

As for the RfC, I'm sorry my comment was puzzling. I was writing from the perspective of someone coming to the page in response to the RfC. The long and discursive discussion on the talk page may well have been helpful for the improvement of the article, but RfC's work best when they result in input from editors who haven't previously been involved with the article, and who don't want to get fully up to speed on everything being discussed. I see that my comment didn't make that point very clearly. Perhaps an example will be more useful: I was impressed by the RfC setup at Talk:Tucson, Arizona#December 16-23, 2004 vote, which provided the two different versions and a summary of each side's position. Unfortunately, that kind of consideration for the editors responding to the RfC is not yet the norm. JamesMLane t c 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Brook discussion I started out pretty much on Tsunamis side, but then I got interested in the objectivist perspective (with the whole load of Old European reservations). … Seems an interesting part of the larger American meme. Now I have arrived at a point were I have to decide if I really want to invest in set of ARI CD-Roms; probably not? But it would be necessary to know "all" of his lectures on the topics discussed. We'll see.

Yes, the Tuscan Arizona example is brilliant. Good work. In the Brook case we would be missing voters. From my limited perspective and attention it feels there are basically two camps, one would be perfectly satisfied if Brook was simply put on the totem pole with the accompanying quotes from his O’Reilly interview, which no doubt was outrageous. The other side does not want to show this too clearly to the world, but does not want to devote too much time either to present him, the roots and developments of this views before the interview and after. Up to a point they seemed mainly busy deleting/reverting.

But now I understand EndlessMike’s comment! Are we voting? I wouldn’t have expected initially but I think concerning the definition B) of the category Anti-War Activist I am leaning strongly towards EndlessMike by now. With all due respect to its authors/creators: The definition leaves a slot, where anybody can squeeze his way in that e.g. criticizes the execution of the war in Iraq (the guilty: Rummy) and makes his view public known. [...) B contains 2 times 2 conditions combined via or, offering two either/or choices thus resulting in 4 times 2 possible combinations, the above is one of them. Brooks both criticizes the execution and he definitely makes his view publicly known. If we like it or not, he would fit the defintion.

Deadline approaching without any indulgence, gone for good now for a while LeaNder 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at what's going on at Ayn Rand Institute. ThAtSo 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The comment is on your user page is really funny. You hit the nail on its head concerning my initial reaction. LeaNder 11:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I made you smile. Please feel very free to contribute to these articles, whatever your own view might be, because we need more people to break the deadlock between pro-ARI and non-ARI Objectivists (not to mention the anti-Objectivists who jump in all the time). ThAtSo 09:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ThAtSo, unfortunately ARI is not my topic either. Only Yaron Brook somehow made me aware of it. And I have to admit that it sometimes feels as if he belongs to a strategic cast of characters. But I have too much fantasy sometimes. I notice only today that the link to the O'Reilly video there is gone or dead again. Yes, this may well be a fight against a well funded PR department ;-)LeaNder 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Talk page and WP:TALK before reformatting a talk page. A TOC is automatically generated when the page has more than three headings. WP:TOC explains how to add a TOC manually. --Jtir 17:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New comments on talk pages should be added at the end. I have moved your comment to the end of Talk:Yevgeny Zamyatin. The above links explain how to reply to an earlier comment. Also, could you please remove most of the translation — it is barely relevant to Yevgeny Zamyatin. The one sentence in which Z. is named would be sufficient. You can, of course, put whatever you like on your user page: User:LeaNder. You can also create sub-pages there and link to them from an article's talk page. --Jtir 18:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hear you. I hadn't much time, so the little Wikipedian I once knew had vanished AND the note was a spontaneous reaction to Bandalore and his site. I happen to have been thinking about this connection before and thus maybe overreacted. But if you think it should not be there, or should be shorter. I would prefer, if you simply delete it, Master/Lady Jtir. Personally I would like to have the whole quote, it was in fact shorter first, but then I realized, I might want to see this in context.

Yes wanting to respond to Bandalore directly was not nice, strictly somebody was first. And I did not pay due attention, and should have dutifully lined up. Was that you? If so, sorry!

You are correct, it is not important to Zamjanski, although scholars of literature may find this connection interesting. But again go ahead and delete it completely. I like to act spontaneous sometimes, and some people understand; while others don't want to watch the encounter of an umbrella with a sewing machine, or other inspiring concoctions. Which I perfectly respect. I will deeply repent for about an hour now. ;-( And you go aheand and delete the whole disgusting affair. 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, Jtir, I can see now, I simply should have gone to Bandalore's talk page creating a new header there or adding to an existing one. So thanks, your efforts to help me via the appropriate article for the specific case are very welcome. I can see, now that I should not have ridiculed your efforts to help. I guess, that's what the above must feel to you.

I am basically avoiding the core of your critique. Sorry, again. I will delete my comment myself now.

Hmmm? but unfortunately my search for Bandalore's talk page have some kind of yo-you effect, I have to study more closely now, it seems. LeaNder 11:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the pertinent part would be fine with me. Putting a compliment on User talk:Bandalore would ensure that he sees it, because he will see a bright orange banner announcing it when he signs in. Bandalore is a redirect to an article page, User:Bandalore is his user page, and User talk:Bandalore is his talk page.

FYI, he is Alan Myers (translator). --Jtir 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you review my English translations of the German titles in the References section of Carl Benz? (I used babelfish and common sense, so it won't hurt my feelings if you correct them.) Also, there is a discussion regarding the spelling of his name (Carl or Karl) at Talk:Carl Benz. Could you offer any insights or sources (e.g. an authoritative bio)? The article needs more citations, and the best sources seem to be in German. --Jtir 18:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, somehow I would spell it Carl but I never thought about it. But the German Wiki's no doubt have. He seems to have changed the initial consonant, which is not really surprising. It was chic in the nineteenth century over here to Latinize family names. Maybe that's the larger influence for the change. "K" is "C" in Latin. But this is simply from the top of my head. There could be another reason:

Something else surfaces, if you google "Karl Benz". There was a head of a Nazi district with the same name. But strictly he seems to have used "C" for his firm already in 1906. On the German page they talk abut French influence, and that Karlsruhe was spelled Carlsruhe in the late 19th century. I do not completely trust that, since the article on Karlsruhe does not show a trace of this. Maybe it was simply a fashion? If it was slightly more West and part of the Alsace, I would trust that much more than I do now. You give me a little time to check that, and then I can no doubt look at the text. On first sight it looked fine to me. But I only read a tiny little part. I have much to do this week, but in the evening maybe I have a little time to take a closer look.

"German titles in the reference section" Absolutely perfect. Lebensfahrt is a not so common coinage. It combines life and drive/journey/ride, so it would take much pondering to get closer than you already are. What you are looking for is a combination that suggests Life as a ride a drive (association: car driving) ... LeaNder 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LeaNder. You have been very helpful. I have copied all of the above to Talk:Carl Benz to maintain context. --Jtir 17:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can create interwiki links by using special prefixes. For example, a link like this: [[de:Carl Benz|Carl Benz]] links to the German article: Carl Benz. --Jtir 20:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to edit the article itself. I have referred User:83d40m to the WP policy on Wikipedia:Consensus. --Jtir 12:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jtir, for your help, the many, many help links. I wish there was a general site a sub-header, where I could see the contents concerning all the Wiki language/program pages, from where all the sub-categories radiate out. A point to return to in search of special problems; but too a place from were I can understand what I have to know, the higher architecture the framework? If there is such a space/site - not sure if I got this over? - I'd be very pleased if you can tell me.

And no, I do not want to contribute to the Carl Benz article, that's not my topic. But as soon as I know about the laws concerning first names, I'll let you know. LeaNder 20:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of help pages and sometimes finding the right one can be difficult. This is probably the best place to start: Help:Contents. You can also do searches in the various namespaces (e.g. Help, Wikipedia).[1] Guessing can also work, because there are some naming conventions, shortcuts, and abbreviations for common topics: WP:HELP, WP:EDIT, WP:REDIRECT, WP:MOS, WP:MOSDAB. Also, edit summaries can contain informative links. I often use "per WP:V".

Other resources: {{helpme}}, WP:PUMP.

BTW, you can use navtools to make browsing and editing easier. I use WP:POPUPS and User:Lunchboxhero (for ISBNs). User:Jtir/monobook.js shows the details.

User:Jtir will give you (indirectly) some other info.

NP re CB.

--Jtir 20:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other tip, perhaps an obvious one, is to copy how others do something. I sometimes click the edit tab to peek "under the hood" where I have no intention of editting. --Jtir 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jtir, copying was my trick so far. Maybe I need a book to study the basics. What I need is a framework in my head otherwise I keep getting lost. But thanks a lot for all the hints. LeaNder 10:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Oh! no maybe not this is perfect: [2] LeaNder 10:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You left me a message in June about a comment you had left at talk:Karlsruhe. I'm sorry I didn't reply. I had decided in January to take an extended wikibreak because I was being bullied and it wasn't doing my health any good. The bullying wasn't to do with any Holocaust-related articles, but I'll probably steer clear of those too for the time being because editing them can be pretty draining and frustrating as well. Best wishes Ireneshusband (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I haven't logged in for some time. Yes, democracy is sometimes complicated. ;) For whatever reason, bullying does not touch me anymore. Aggression is also a bit of weakness, isn't it? I hope you are fine. LeaNder (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What references do you have to support Harden's name not being Isador? And, what evidence do you have to support your claims about the far right "tagging" Jews with the name, Isador?

I am aware of Goebbles calling him Isadore Witkowski in his journals, but he also identified him as a Jew.

I doubt there would be a need for coded speech when they said Jew so freely. And, that the far right had this power to alter his name in print, especially considering Harden died in 1927.

If you can't support your claims, it's appropriate to include the name, Isador. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murrayhuntington (talk • contribs) 23:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't around for quite some time, I hope this still reaches you? I only learned about Maximilian Harden through a 1930 publication by German Jewish philosopher Theodor Lessing: Der Jüdische Selbsthass/Jewish Self-Hate. Which contains five portraits of German and Austrian Jews, one of Maximilian Harden. I don't think Lessing mentions the name "Isidor". Isador must be a misspelling anyway. And Lessing knew Harden well, he recounts a peculiar personal encounter with him as a young man. The Jewish German literary scholar Hans Mayer mentions him too: in his magnum opus: [3] [basically I had to check, but I think none of both mentions the name Isidor] But my main argument only partly relies on these two. Why should they use Nazi propaganda? A German scholar studied the history of the "so-called" Jewish name telling us essentially about orders from the Prussian king, which his civil servants long ignored, since mainly there was not such a thing as a Jewish name. Bering,The Stigma of Names: Antisemitism in German Daily Life, 1812-1933. e.g. Mayer writes in his book that Theodor Lessing was a descendant of Jewish families who adopted the name Lessing, since Lessing was close to the famous Jewish German Mendelssohn and out of a sense of thankfulness for his the Wise Man He wrote another book about the special case of Bernard Weiss, vice president of the Berlin police and Jewish. Bernard Weiss was the main target of Goebbels and the German Nazis.he is mentioned:

Among his favourite targets were socialist leaders such as Hermann Müller and Carl Severing, and the Jewish Berlin Police President, Bernhard Weiss, whom he subjected to a relentless campaign of Jew-baiting in the hope of provoking a crackdown which he could then exploit. The Social Democrat city government obliged in 1927 with an eight-month ban on the party, which Goebbels exploited to the hilt. When a friend criticised him for denigrating Weiss, a man with an exemplary military record, "he explained cynically that he wasn’t in the least interested in Weiss, only in the propaganda effect."[23]

Bernhard Weiss has a perfectly German name, none of his readers would have known he is Jewish and in this context Goebbels tagged the name: Isidor on him. Here in context: name Isidor unfortunately in German. Weiss appeared in the parliament once, were the Nazis had just beaten up a former party member who had crossed over to the Socialist party. He was welcomed by the Nazis with cries of: Isidor, Isidor. The use of the name by the Nazi happed out of frustration, his name wouldn't tell people he was Jewish, so something else was needed: Isidor.

Does that help you? 14:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)