This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

should we tackle this at some point this month? I'm working on the diss and am under pressure to finish (must find a job too), but there's room to deal with this. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's get it sorted this month. -- JN 466 22:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

fine. do we just need a drawing of the castle layout? What do you think? ` Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Weyden, p. 40. appears to be inaccurate. According to everything I can find, the 5 week siege, which supposedly occurred in 1275-1295, the Count of Cleves at that time was Dietrich VII of Meissen. Hmmmm. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 23:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, Am finding it difficult to pull out time for wikipeida at the moment. I'd like to request if the moderated discussion could be suspended for a while. Meanwhile, as KM Reports is an article other editors might also be interested in taking up, and as I do not want the creation of the page on Wikipedia to be delayed for reasons having to do with me, I raise a mention of it on the talk of a closely related article [1]. I'd be much thankful if you could share your perspective there. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 12:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, I had created the article, as I could manage to pull out some time yesterday. If you could go through and share your opinion on the content, I'd be most thankful.

User:PCPP has barged in and blanked the whole thing out. If you agree the material belongs, you could save the article from PCPP's revert, and that would also be an expression of consensus between the two of us who were engaged in discussion on the topic.

The user PCPP has been chasing me around , balnking my contributions, while at the same time attempting to characterize me as some disruptive editor. Here, in this recent instance, PCPP blanks another paragraph of content I had added to the article "Persecution of Falun Gong," with no real rationale.

Its not that editors who want to contribute find it difficult to work together to contribute on these articles, but a small group is bent on keeping this content out of wikipedia. Its been 4 years since the KM reports were released, and it still remains difficult to create an article on it in wikipedia.

Dilip rajeev ( talk)

Silktork specifically requested that Dilip do not create the mainspace while the moderated discussion was taking place [2]. Numerous users already raised their concerns regarding the article on this talkpage, so it's a much better idea to gain a wider consensus.-- PCPP ( talk) 15:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Dilip, while I agree the topic is notable, it would have been better if you had followed the process that SilkTork had outlined at the time. Could I suggest you transfer your article to the userspace page that SilkTork had set up, and we go through it together there? It may take a little longer, but if we get community agreement for a version of your article first, then it will have a better chance of staying in mainspace. Tortoise and hare and all that. -- JN 466 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Jayen. We could work together on reviewing it, and factoring the contents from the organ harvesting page. I'll make a request to Silktork to create a page in his user-space for the article. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 16:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, Could you kindly review the article when you find time. It would be great if we could set ourselves a schedule to work on the page. Dilip rajeev ( talk)

Jayen466, I request that you stop following me, and commenting on me and my actions. But a few of these instances in the past have included [3], [4] and [5]. I feel that this focusing on me is inappropriate. I feel hounded. I politely request that you stop doing so. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Poor Cirt is feeling hounded... / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 06:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayen. I have a familiar feeling about this, so if I asked you before about this subject, please disregard me now. I am looking for further evidence that some kind of German regional or central government decree was made in the 19th C that required French-sounding surnames to be changed to German ones. The Remarque Institute says so, but I don't have access to other German sources. It is important to this article, as it provides further evidence that Remarque's family were not being deceptive in their name change, but were responding to legal requirements. Do you happen to know anything about this yourself? Thanks. Cheers. Rumiton ( talk) 13:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I found these abouot Remarque's own name change: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], but nothing so far about the exact reason for the family's changing the spelling of its name in the 1870s. Will let you know if I come across anything else. -- JN 466 15:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those. The Institute claims that German nationalism was behind the naming law, but one contributor took hot exception to this, and he may be right. The Remarque Institute is a rather left-leaning organisation. Rumiton ( talk) 10:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman well done J. and thanks for your quality contributions to the project. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, will somebody go review Steve's article! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, I will. -- JN 466 00:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was nicely done too. Congrats Auntieruth55 ( talk) 02:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruth. -- JN 466 13:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

what else should we be doing on this? You were going to make a drawing of the layout. Anything else I should be doing? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What I still want to do is to incorporate more details about the course of the fighting from the Potthoff chapter in the book I bought, and also from the letter I found in Wikisource. As for the layout of the castle, you seem to be quite good with graphics software ;), but I can have a go. -- JN 466 23:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm really trying to work on my dissertation. I'm okay with 14 November. I found that in other sources too. But also 4 November. I'd go w Potthoff on that. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 00:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Good luck with the dissertation. -- JN 466 00:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done a few tweaks on the footnotes. The pattern is to include both sources in a single footnote (in the case of multiple sources). There would be a lot of edits, if we altered it now. Also, don't forget the de icon template if you add anything from a German source. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 00:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. And the first time a source is cited, we cite the whole title and publication info, correct? -- JN 466 00:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, but should be in the same format...Turabian, AHA. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, I see that article as impossible to fix as things stand, because the aim seems to be to undermine Singer, rather than telling his story warts and all. I've started work on a new draft of it at User:SlimVirgin/FS, if you have time to take a look. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)