User talk:Feketekave

I am not at home right now. Please leave a message.

Thank you for uploading

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. Sorry for the delay. I understand your argument. What do you think we can do to compromise? Marcus2 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salut ! - I received your message about « Category:French people of German descent ». (The title of your post to me was perfect!) My extremely strong personal feeling against categorization of anyone by ethnic and religious means is, simply, that it is ethically wrong, and that all ethnic and religious categories should be deleted from Wikipédia, period.

On the other hand, I am a realist. As much as the practice disgusts me personally, there are hundreds of Wikipédiens (probably mostly U.S. citizens) who will scream to keep these absurd, racist accountings and there would be endless « discussions » and « wars » about deleting them.

I posted that comment to the Talk page in a weak moment. (If I could keep a cooler head, I would not have written it in the first place.) So, to answer your direct question to me: If I thought another comment by me would help to fix this offensive practice, I would happily contribute again to the Talk page. But considering there are hundreds racial nonsense categories all over Wikipédia like this, and too many vocal defenders, the effort - like the one by Sisyphus - would be ultimately useless and last an eternity. - - Amicalement, best regards, Charvex (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a more humourous note, you may enjoy this article: « Lamest edit wars ». When you reach the middle of the « Ethnic feuds » section, you may laugh until you cry. Wikipédia is just not worth idiotic battles. - - Tchao, Charvex (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misreading the WHOIS information for the IP addresses you have cited. They are not "based at RIPE";

Dear Feteketave, I received a message of User:Skäpperöd about a CU-request I'm involved. It seems the reason of the request were contributions to Ilya Ehrenburg and Alexander Grothendieck throughout the last days. In fact, the problem is, I'm not the only one using this computer, my brother does too. I talked to him several times about different WP articles and my activities there and I know, he started to make some minor additions. I can only apologize and assure, I never contributed as an IP and will take care it's not going to happen again. Best regards HerkusMonte (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I understand your viewpoint. If is different from mine, but I don't think I can convince you. If you want to continue this discussion with others, then let's use the Talk page on Leon Trotsky. --82.23.51.213 (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has contributed to the Eugene O'Neill article, perhaps you would be willing to look at the (rather one-sided) discussion on that article's talk page regarding Emerson7's deletion of cited materials, Ah, Wilderness NOT O'Neill's only comedy. I would like to have a Request for Comment process initiated, but must have at least one other editor to have contributed to the discussion before an RfC can be started. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your post. Köszönöm szépen! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were sure at the moment about the title of the book, I had written it. So I would have first to search at the library. I read a few German books by Ingrid Strobl [1], each of them separated into a few independant chapters. One of this chapters was about the shots at Białystok. My feeling says, it's in the book "Die Angst kam erst danach". By the way, the attendant Haika Grossman once wrote a book about her time in war. ("The underground army") Haikah%22&iknowwhatimean=1. It's really recommendable. But I think, a Polish nationalist censor would also like to shorten some of the text passages. The common impression there is, in all ethnic groups there were some brave men, who were exceptions.

--Henrig (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feketekave, the certain old man thought quite sensibly. Poland as well as Germany faced the problems after WW1 without consolidated democratic traditions. And there were a lot of problems. Pilsudski was a stroke of luck (not only) for Poland in this situation and Gabriel Narutowicz could have been a necessary supplementation. But it was the time of radical views from different directions. A time, when it was possible, that Narutowicz's assassin was perceived as a cult figure. By the way, in Germany it was quite similar with the assassins of Walther Rathenau. One of them, Ernst von Salomon was such a right-wing popular figure, that nobody could dare, to object to his living with a Jewish woman later. This seems somewhat comparable.

--Henrig (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a comment at

I found this discussion to be overly aggressive, I'm willing to start a new disscussion. I don't think that your last edit was right but I'm willing to discuss it from the begininng, with clean hands and mind, just to give chance for a cease fire. As an act of good will I self revert my last edit on Zamenhof's article--Gilisa (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a comment on my talk page.--Gilisa (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feketekave, I've added two additional signed comments about 1906 on my talkpage. You can read there.

--Henrig (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that both you and User:Urban XII have been edit-warring on this article, but you are the only one who has made four reverts in 24 hours. If you will undo your last revert, you may avoid a block for 3RR.

While I'm here, I'm officially notifying you of

You are correct in what you wrote on the Volksdeutsche page, I have argued many times on the Expulsions of Germans page that some of those numbers are ridiculous because lot of German civilians got killed when the warzone literally caught with them (the Nazis didn't allow evacuation of civilians because they considered everybody who tried to escape a deserter). But anyway it's to no avail, no matter how you try to explain that they just want the pumped up the number... Loosmark (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understood the comment on my talk page ?! BuzzWoof (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have insights into the whole Marka issue on the SCV page? Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC) JM[reply]

I am currently looking for estimates of numbers of German resistance. Since you also commented on that I wonder if you have any sources which could shed a light on this. Right now they have been ridiculously inflated. Your comments are welcome[2] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avaya,

Since most wikipedia.org users presumably can't read German, it seems useful to keep the translation.

There are a few further differences in wording between the version you reverted and the one I edited. My main concern here is to avoid statements that are overly strong or non sequiturs. It's clear that some sources have different agendas - we should try to keep neutral. I see your work on the Cantor page has been referred to by another user above.

There was a further issue with a statement that was clearly original research (Cantor's family being allegedly given dispensation to live in a particular area (implying that they needed such dispensation), with no sources being cited), but perhaps we agree on that.

Feketekave (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feketekave, feel free to edit out the OR, if there's still any left. I agree the section is not perfect, and was originally very OR. But some of your wording, for example "a letter mentions his belief" etc, is not an accurate represention of the sources (e.g. he doesn't mention that he has a belief about his grandparents - he just states it). As for the other editor above, I don't quite understand what his point was. He's angry because I was edit-warring him on another article. I didn't actually write the ancestry section of the article - but I added the sources for the penultimate paragraph. Avaya1 (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also some of the wording that you re-introduced into the article I think I originally wrote (e.g. there were documented statements"). As far as replacing that wording by "there is a document" - I assume that the latter is more accurate, since we only go on to describe that one document? Avaya1 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avaya,

This is a delicate issue. Let me just comment on the most recent revert:

(a) Either wording on Cantor's beliefs about his ancestry seems acceptable to me. The point would be - is Cantor a Cantor scholar? He may himself have had very limited sources on his ancestry. His belief about his paternal ancestors is relevant as a belief, but it is not necessarily a proof of something about them; as far as I know, he was never in Denmark and may not have known his grandparents' milieu.

(b) The citation on Josef Boehm is in a book by a reputable press. At the same time - I have taken a look at the source - Boehm seems to appear only once in the book, in a secondary clause ("..., while Joachim had been the pupil both of Ferdinand David and of another eminent Jewish violinist, Joseph Boehm"). In the absence of further remarks on Boehm, we do not know what Ezra Mendelssohn means by the label, or how he defines it. I may add that parts of the book read almost like lists of famous people on whom the label "Jew" is systematically attached.

There's a further citation I can't read, since I don't know Hungarian. Feketekave (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what's you're saying on (b). The book is published by Cambridge University Press, but it doesn't go into much depth (and the Hungarian source we're taking second-hand from what jinfo.org reports that it says).

On (a), "states" is more accurate. If it "mentioned his belief" - then the letter would surely say something like "I have a belief that my grandparents...", rather than "My grandparents were born".

If we want to look for some more sources, possibly we could ask User:All Hallow's Wraith?

Avaya1 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Feketekave. 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

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]

Hello, Feketekave. 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

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]

Hello, Feketekave. 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

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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2019 (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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]