Jump to content

User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2009/August

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wahhabi

Hi, J. If you're ever stuck for an article to get your teeth into, Wahhabi is hotly disputed (seen by some as unbalanced; in need of rewrites + refs; or at least editorial pointers in the right direction). Take care, Esowteric+Talk 22:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly got a few tags. I'll have a look, once I've got my current project out of my hair ... although I must say, having recently worked on some dinosaur articles, that I appreciate the more restful and collaborative atmosphere surrounding such less controversial articles. If there's ever anything urgent you need my help with though, just ping me here. JN466 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

NONRS and activism

Pls discuss your edits at Jamie Doran, you are adding activist web sites and you delete reliable verifiable sources w/o discussing and you are making bio into hatrack for your political views. You can be surprise, but I am socialist and Marxist, i hate Ami Imperisalism also, altho' I live in US right now, but this is Wiki, it is not my blog, we have to use RS like New York Times and Newsweek and not world socialist and Democracy Now. It is very improtant on conteroversial article we give all sides, the RS do say, they think Ami forces were not involve. I think they are lying, you think they are lying, but my opinion and World Socialist website is not a RS for Wiki article. Thx RetroS1mone talk 00:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Transcendental Meditation article

We enjoy having new editors on the page. Cheers!--Kbob (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

religioustolerance. org

That looks fine to me. Thanks for asking.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Good work. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientology: Telegraph article

This just in, J (not sure if it's news to you): Britain's secret mission to expose Scientology leader as 'fraud' Esowteric+Talk 10:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Esowteric. I don't follow the daily papers much, so I hadn't seen this. Might be something for Scientology in the UK; I'll drop a note on the talk page there. JN466 10:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I haven't bought a paper for years, but use an RSS newsfeed feedreader to see if there's anything that catches my eye. Esowteric+Talk 10:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Harm Test

I know we're at odds on the Gates booking photo, but I thought I'd share with you this guideline Wikipedia:HARM#TEST. In your view, how does the photograph fail the harm test here? Mattnad (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Template issues

Are you sure the image name parameter in {{Infobox Historical Event}} can handle {{Double image}}? Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It can't; like I said on the talk page, one of us has to stitch the two pictures together and upload them as a single picture. JN466 00:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I've done it, will upload in a mo. JN466 00:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks good! Nice work. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI - whatever we do with the photograph, the Gates photo probably isn't Free so if we go with it, we'll need it in Wikipedia under Fair Use and not on the commons. Mattnad (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Image reversal

Could you please upload a reversed image of Crowley_and_Gates, that puts the image of Gates on the left. I'd do it, but I am unfamiliar with the process with Commons images. It needs to be done, but I don't want to cock it up. As you uploaded the derivative work, you should be able to accomplish the task in short order. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death

Updated DYK query On August 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 20:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your work on the Jamie Doran page. It is much appreciated. Biggerpicture (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure. It is a fascinating story. Important, too. JN466 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, thanks for taking the time to work on this page. As you can probably see, I've tried to take a step back from it as RetroS1mone and I have been at loggerheads. It's great to have a third party involved. The page looks a great deal better now. Let's hope everyone agrees. Biggerpicture (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Will keep fingers crossed. I've done some work expanding Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death as well , and have submitted it to WP:DYK. Keeping fingers crossed, again. --JN466 10:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Great stuff. I imagine it might be a bit controversial for the DYK, but I'll keep my fingers crossed as well. Biggerpicture (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi Jayen466, The page hasn't been modified in the last couple days. I can hardly believe it. Did you see the message I left on the discussion page? And did you see RetroS1mone's reply?

I wanted to say thanks again. It seems we have come close to a resolution - I'm sure this would never have happened without your involvement.

Would you drop some sort of a conclusory line on the discussion page, please? I don't want her to think you're no longer watching at this crucial point.

Cheers, Biggerpicture (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the last exchange on the talk page. She seems to have withdrawn for now, partly perhaps because of [1] and [2]. Let's leave it at that; I'll keep the article on my watchlist (and feel free to ping me here on my talk page if I should miss any important development).
On a related matter, the Dasht-i-Leili massacre article needs some work; if you want to help, I've put some sources together here. Thanks for bringing the article to my attention in the first place. Cheers, JN466 22:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, she does seem to have capitulated. I thought it would never happen.
I'll take a look at the Dasht-i-Leili massacre page. I've become rather snowed under with my day job recently, though, so I won't be able to do much on it for a week or two. You've greatly improved the The Afghan Massacre film page - nice one.
What do you think will happen with Obama's inquiry?
I'm reading a book that you might be interested in: [3]. It is absolutely fascinating - '"Civil War is Not a Stupid Thing" takes issue with two common perspectives on violence and war. The first is the liberal interpretation, according to which war is exclusively negative in its effects and peace is easily achieved through democratisation and free trade. In this view, modern liberal market democracies have outgrown violence, and only resort to it in self-defence. The second is a romantic, utopian view of violence. Transposed into political rhetoric, these two views are often directly opposed, as they are nowadays in Iraq and in the 'War on Terror'. Cramer's book forges an alternative way of understanding the role of violence in the transition to capitalism and a global economy.'
My fiance is doing a masters in sociology of religion - also a fascinating subject.
Best, 86.141.63.171 (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, I missed your post earlier. Thanks for the recommendation, I've got in on order. May be a challenge for me, as I tend to be fairly pacifist myself, but anything that removes illusions is useful. ;) Best, JN466 13:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Osho reliable source

Hi Jayen, would you please comment in reply to Paine's thought on the insertion of A Thompsons comments cited to Sannyasnews on the Osho talk here ta. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Development committee

Hi J, not sure what you think of the WP:Development committee. The flak from critics just led to this temporary page blanking and insertion:

"The Development Committee (DevCom) was a great idea, torpedoed by the usual wikipedia idiocy of people getting up in arms about what they have decided something says, as opposed to actually reading the thing. This does, of course, highlight precisely why a focus group is needed. The irony burns." by Roux. Flogging a dead horse or in need of TLC? Cheers, Esowteric+Talk 20:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Will keep an eye. Another editor's restored the thing for now. Best wishes, --JN466 21:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thanks

For the barnstar! :^) ↜Just M E here , now 17:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) --JN466 17:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
<For some reason I blush.> Hey! within the caption could we hint at the, quote, "loud and tumultuous behavior in a public place directed at uniformed police officers," end of quote, that the dropped charges were based on -- say, in a phrase? But then, the image itself's portrayal of Gates's arrest brings so much weighted over to the side of the ledger of these public servants, the Cambridge police, maybe our adding of a single word (such as "tumultuous"?) would be plenty enough to be absolutely sure we give the cops' side its due. ↜Just M E here , now 17:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can see the proposal doesn't keep Crowley's end up quite enough. Am open to ideas. Perhaps we could integrate some of what I had proposed here in the arrest (handcuff) photo caption, i.e. Crowley saying that "Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him." --JN466 21:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I like the balance.
Would there also be some way to satisfy Mattnad's concerns wrt succinctness? Like, maybe instead of our fleshing out too much whatever context we're providing for a pic, briefly reference one or two telling details? ↜Just M E here , now 16:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Nomination German Unification

I've renominated the Unification of Germany article. It seemed a shame that all your work and that of the other readers would be lost, so will notify those who did take the time to read it. I think we're reasonably good on it. I'd appreciate your support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikidrama brewing

Could be a wikidrama brewing: Enneagram, Fourth Way Enneagram and Enneagram‎ of Personality (worth a quick peek) :) Esowteric+Talk 16:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I get it now: someone writes an article about G's use of the enneagram; a while later another adds some geometry; along comes yet another who takes out "all the occult stuff" and moves it to the other articles. So, we're left with just the geometry ... Esowteric+Talk 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Award

Police ribbon
Jimbo medal 		The Neutral Point of View Medal
        with Human Rights / Local Police Ribbon
 
JN466, in recognition of his many efforts towards balance and discretion on Wikipedia biographical articles, with special mention of his most recent proposal for image captions on the Cambridge P.D. – Prof. Skip Gates article: spot on in its provision of necessary context with extraordinary neutrality and concision!—Justmeherenow 19:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! JN466 20:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Gates Arrest

With this edit [4] you've added back text that is quoted in total in an extremely visible and specially highlighted quote immediate to the right. There comes a point when a single-minded agenda degrades an article. If you insist on keeping this in, I'll then remove the quote box since both are not required right next to each other. Your choice. We don't need to repeat the same things over and over again.Mattnad (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not repeating it over and over, are we? We're repeating it once, and it's obviously of direct BLP relevance. Shall we ask for further input at the BLP noticeboard? JN466 19:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Go for it.Mattnad (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done [5] JN466 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Enneagram pages

Hi J466, another mathematician came along and we agreed to move Enneagram to Nonagram (thus saving the Enneagram contents) and use Enneagram as a disambiguation page. Now someone else wants to move Nonagram to Ennegram ... I said, read the discussion and now looks like he'd go for Enneagram (shape).

My only concern is I don't want the 99% looking for the popular meanings of enneagram to get lost to satisfy the 1% after the geometric shape, though. If you have time, please can you give your considered judgement at Talk:Nonagram (support or object, whatever). Many thanks, eric Esowteric+Talk 18:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed (at least by those present) and moved. Thanks for your help J, it's appreciated. Esowteric+Talk 08:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. JN466 09:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

New religious movements

Hi Jayen, I just noticed that a lot of familiar articles are being assessed. Not sure if you know of this already, but seems to be linked to WP:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group and Category:New religious movements. Cheers, eric Esowteric+Talk 19:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some articles on my watchlist popped up. Which ones were the ones on yours? Most of this work has been done by John Carter (talk · contribs), an editor I know (and respect) from various arbitration cases; I have joined the work group. JN466 19:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Fourth Way and Sufi stuff keep popping up, Jayen (too many to list here :)) As well as a "religious" rating, they're getting an "NRM" sub-rating Esowteric+Talk 19:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you have more fourth-way stuff on your watchlist than me. :) Yes, I see Shah's got an NRM label too and has been added to the project's GAs. It's debatable with Shah; he doesn't feature much in books on NRMs: [6] Actually, slightly more hits if you use the plural: [7] JN466 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Sufi stuff with 4W cat is getting assessed for NRM. Idries Shah is "low NRM importance" :) Esowteric+Talk 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah well, if you don't murder, harass or poison anyone you are obviously "low importance". :)) JN466 20:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Get this ... And yet Sarmoung Brotherhood is mid-importance. So myth maybe weighs more than reality? Shah gets around 130 hits/day; Sarmoung and Tahir Shah get around 35, btw. I'd join, too, but I'm not sure whether they're looking for foot soldiers / grunts :) Esowteric+Talk 20:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a wiki ... anyone can join. :) JN466 20:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Assessment is a long way from being a science, but for quality assessment the terms at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Assessment#Quality scale should help. Basically, if its FA, its FA. If it's been called a GA but failed FA later, barely, it's probably an A. Importance assessments are another matter. Basically, the way I've been doing it is going section by section, trying to determine the relative importance of the main subject, most of which I've been saying are "high" just to not annoy anyone, and then determine how important that individual article is to that subject, in effect applying the terms at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Assessment#Importance scale based on the idea that the importance rating of the main subject determines just how far down the list the individual article gets. So, in effect, the founder of a group almost always gets a "Mid", as would the religious book of the group, while less important people and topics would get "Low". This is, of course, all based on the relative importance of the main subject itself. Does that make any sense? John Carter (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope I didn't offend, John: I have some "mythtory" with the Sarmouni and I was just joking with Jayen. I've seen you powering through the assessments and I'm impressed by the idea and the work. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 20:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that subpage seems to have most of the relevant info. Is there an easy way to see all the pages that are currently within the scope of the work group? --JN466 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/New religious movements articles by quality I think lists all those that have been recorded by the bot on its last run, which was I think Saturday. And I would think that if you want to go ahead and do some assessments, the thing to do would probably be to start with a subcat that isn't clearly in the scope of a related project and tag it for the work group, so that I'll know that it's already been done. I'm basically taking that approach as is myself, starting at the beginning of the subcats. I've also been adding the categories to the Scope section as I start them and if you do some assessing you might want to do that as well. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
By "tagging" do you mean adding the {{WPReligion}} as the assessment banner on the talk page? JN466 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, preferably {{WPReligion|class=|importance=|NRM=yes|NRMImp=}}with the various grades filled in. I myself just put it on "copy" and paste it in each time filling in the missing fields. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. What stage is the work of tagging at, at the moment, in your estimation? Barely begun, nearly finished, or somewhere in the middle? And are you aware of any key areas that belong within the scope that haven't been tagged as yet?
Come to think of it, what about all the Scientology articles – should they be added, or is it enough for them to be in the Scientology project? JN466 21:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC nomination process

this is getting absurd. You start at the top, I'll start at the bottom, I've already had a couple of editing conflicts with you. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice you were editing; up to you then. --JN466 22:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

just a note 

 Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; this is useful as well. JN466 00:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Mölders

Klar mach ich. Danke für die Unterstützung. Gruß MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Leutnant am 1. 3. 34 ! Obermaier and Held p. 32. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, dann verschieb ich den Satz, damit der Zeitablauf wieder stimmt. Danke. JN466 13:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Im Fall von Mölders tendiere ich zur englischen, da er nie gegen die Amerikaner geflogen ist. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, dann die britische. Bisher alles okay? Im Spanien-Teil habe ich die Absätze etwas umgestellt (chronologisch), aber es ist noch alles da. Gruß, JN466 17:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
He, das sieht schon sehr schön aus. Vielen Dank! MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, prima! (Just checking ...) Wie sieht es mit der Verwendung von Kursivschrift aus; gibt es da beim WikiProject Military History Regeln für Wörter wie Jagdgeschwader usw.? WP:ITALICS rät, man soll italics verwenden, wenn es im Webster Online nicht drinsteht (Jagdgeschwader steht z.B. nicht drin). --JN466 17:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Der Begriff Jagdgeschwader ist in der community sehr etabliert und wird oft nicht kursiv gestellt. Aber es ist sicher kein Fehler ihn kursiv zu stellen. Schau Dir mal den Artikel Heinrich Bär an. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, gut, können wir also so lassen. Ein anderer Punkt: in Wendungen wie "II. Gruppe" ist es glaube ich am besten, die römischen Zahlen auch kursiv zu stellen (II. Gruppe), da die Schreibung "II." im Sinne von "zweite" für den Englischsprecher nicht als Ordinalzahl erkenntlich ist; im Englischen schreibt man ja bekanntlich 1st, 2nd usw.; 1., 2. usw. werden eher als Gliederungselemente verstanden. Okay? JN466 18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ja völlig okay! MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Hier ist ein Satz, den ich nicht verstehe: On 14 May, while engaging enemy bombers over Sedan, but bailed out to safety. Was ist gemeint? Gruß, --JN466 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. The Germans did. I have to get back on this
  2. Well, I interpret it like this. He was announced as the next Geschwaderkommodore but due to timing issues he was not able to take up this position until a later date

MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sounds plausible. JN466 19:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Mölders was taken prisoner of war by a infantry unit near the railway station of Estrees St. Denis. They took him to castle Blincourt where he was interrogated by commander Bassous, assisted by the interpreter corporal Zimmermann. After that he was taken to the prisoner of war camp for officers Monferran near Toulouse. It remains unclear who the man was that was sentenced to death.

I have to correct myself. He was announced as Geschwaderkommodore on the 20 July 1940 but he flew his first operation mission on the 28 July

MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some comments on the article talk page. The lead is very very long, and I've suggested some possibilities for shortening it. They are in the invisible wiki, easily changed if you want to, regardless of what is done after this. I've also posed some questions on the talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate your help. Looks like you put a lot of time in this. I surely hope you had some fun with it. I will carefully check and review the article. It looks quite okay right now. Danke! MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Die Auseinandersetzung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland mit dem Traditionsverständnis Mölders scheint eine Geschichte in sich zu sein. Auf der einen Seite war Mölders ein Aushängeschild des NS Regimes auf der anderen Seite ein gläubiger Christ der sich für seine Mitmenschen eingesetzt hat. Unter anderem hat er bei einer Ordensverleihung bei Hitler Fürsprache für den Bischof von Münster Clemens August Graf von Galen gehalten. Ich bin mir nicht sicher ob eine Verstrickung in diese Thematik und dem Umgang mit der Deutschen Vergangenheit den Artikel weiterbringt, man sich verzettelt und/oder er für den englischsprachigen Leser überhaupt nachvollziehbar ist. Hast Du eine Idee wie man mit dem Thema umgehen könnte. Übrigens nochmals vielen Dank für Deine Hilfe. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Das war Gedankenübertragung; ich war vorhin auch am Überlegen, wie man das am besten handhabt. Ich habe heute morgen eine Google-News-Suche nach Mölders gemacht, und es gab 2005 auch einige Berichte in der angelsächsischen Presse, zum Beispiel diesen Times-Artikel und [8]. Ich würde sagen, wir orientieren uns hier in der englischen WP am besten an solchen englischen Berichterstattungen, um den richtigen Ton zu treffen; da kriegen wir weniger polarisierte Aussagen als bei den deutschen Quellen. Wir können auch noch einmal in Google Books nach englischen Büchern schauen. Gruß, JN466 11:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Das Wetter ist sonnig, und ich möchte etwas raus mit der Familie; wahrscheinlich komme ich dieses Wochenende also nicht dazu, viel zu recherchieren. Hier sind noch zwei Leserbriefe von der Times -- natürlich keine RS, aber der erste Leserbrief nennt ein paar Details, die interessant sein könnten, wenn man sie in RS belegt finden könnte. JN466 12:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      Ich hoffe, dass Du ein schönes Wochenende hattest. Ich kannte die Artikel nicht, danke für den Hinweis. Ein weitere Punkt für den Artikel. Der Begriff "aerial victory" bedarf eventuell einer Erklärung. Früher hatte ich mal den Satz "A flying ace or fighter ace is a military aviator credited with shooting down five or more enemy aircraft during aerial combat" der wiederum der Kritik der Mehrfacherläuterung "flying ace" zum Opfer gefallen ist. Wie wäre es mit einem erläuternden Satz wie. "The destruction of an enemy airplane in aerial combat is commonly referred to as an aerial victory. It constitutes the victories encounter of one pilot over another pilot." MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That is simple, he claimed 15 but 14 were confirmed in Spain. One needs to be careful. All in all he was credited with 115 aerial victories (14 in Spain and 101 during WWII). The first pilot to claim 100 aerial victories does not include those victories claimed in Spain but only those of WWII. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

J88 you are correct. Initiallly he flew the He 51 until they were turned over and his unit was re-equipped with the Bf 109. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you check your email?

It might be interesting. Sam Weller (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Found the E-S article that I thought I'd binned years ago. If you would like a scan of a photocopy, email. Sam Weller (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mölders last chapter

Ich möchte noch folgendes ergänzen. Kannst Du den Text gegenlesen und etwaige Korrekturen einbringen. Schöne Tage ohne Internet. Gruß MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In 1985 Viktor Mölders indicated that his brother had saved one of his [Werner Mölders] closest friends, who by the Nuremberg Laws had been classified as a half-Jew, from the concentrations camps. The MGFA ruled that this indication was "highly speculative" and was not further investigated.[1] The close friend of Mölders is Georg Küch. Mölders and Küch friendship dated back to the collective times at the "Saldria" Gymnasium in Brandenburg an der Havel. Georg Küchs mother, Alice Küch née Siegel, was of Jewish birth.[2] Georg Küch's father, Richard Küch, ran a pharmacy in Brandenburg. Georg himself a student of pharmacy was expelled from the German universities on the grounds of the Nuremberg Laws just two semesters shy of his graduation. In 1940 Richard Küch fell sick for the first time and ownership and leadership of the pharmacy became a bureaucratic problem for the family. Georg Küch contacted Werner Mölders in mid February 1941, asking for help. Werner Mölders immediately responded to Küch on 16 February 1941 stating that he had taken action on this issue, asking Küch not to pursue the issue on his own. Richard Küch died in June 1941. According to the German law of the time the pharmacy would have been inherited by Alice Küch. However being Jewish the pharmacy should have been confiscated by the German state, which it wasn't. Alice Küch was given the opportunity to sell the pharmacy for normal market value of the time. Alice Küch was exempt from wearing the Jewish Star until late 1943. She was then deported to the concentration camp Theresienstadt where she worked as a cook. Georg Küch, Alice Küch and his sister Friedel survived the holocaust. Friedel Küch repeatedly stated that Werner Mölders was responsible for protecting the family.[3]

Danke Dir. Gruß MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your !vote at Talk:Circumcision

Hi Jayen,

I noticed you added, then immediately removed your !vote at Talk:Circumcision [9]. Did you mean to do that? Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayjg. I had neither meant to do that, nor in fact realised I had done it. Now restored. Best, JN466 01:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Hagena 2008, p. 72.
  2. ^ Hagena 2008, p. 73.
  3. ^ Hagena 2008, 74–83.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayen466/Archives/2009/August&oldid=1166522437"