Zum Inhalt springen

Benutzer Diskussion:Andy king50/archiv3

Seiteninhalte werden in anderen Sprachen nicht unterstützt.
aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie
Dies ist eine alte Version dieser Seite, zuletzt bearbeitet am 3. Oktober 2006 um 16:53 Uhr durch Rskellner (Diskussion | Beiträge). Sie kann sich erheblich von der aktuellen Version unterscheiden.

Beiträge vor dem 2.10.2006 sind unter der Archivseite zu finden.

Tagebuch des Friedrich Kellner

Entschuldigen mein "gebrochene Deutsch. Können Sie mir helfen mit dies Seit, Tagebuch des Friedrich Kellner. Ich war nicht fertig mit Eintragungen. Nun habe ich viele Linke gesetzt. Das Tagebuch wird veroffentlich bei Justus Liebig Universität (Universität de Gießen). Es hat Austellung bei George Bush Presidential Library, und Holocaust Museum Houston, und Laubach Heimatmuseum. Bitte, helfen mir nicht dies Seit sofortigen Löschen. Können Sie es einmal wieder ansehen? Was müß ich tun? Vielen dank. Dr. Robert Scott Kellner (Rskellner 20:10, 2. Okt 2006 (CEST))

am besten, die wichtigsten Informationen beim vorhandenen Artikel zum Autor Friedrich Keller als Absatz mit einarbeiten - es sollte dort schon einiges vorhanden sein. Für einen einzelnen eigenen Artikel ist dieses Werk einfach zu wenig bedeutsam, als das es neben dem Autorenartikel noch einen eigenen zum Tagebuch geben sollte. Oder würdest Du einen Artikel darüber einen extra Artikel in anderen Enzyklopädien wie Brockhaus oder Enzyclopedia Britannica suchen? Beim Erstellen des Absatzes bitte nur neutral Sachinformationen über das Werk liefern, allenfalls 1-2 kurze Zitate und keine politische Stellungnahme vornehmen (neutraler Standpunkt). Falls es Dir sprachlich schwer fällt, lange Texte in Deutsch zuschreiben, wäre es sicher sinnvoller, Texte aus der deutschen Wiki in die Wiki Deiner Muttersprache zu übersetzen --> ebenfalls Lerneffekt vorhanden, aber Übersetzungen in die Muttersprache sind aus eigener Erfahrung weniger problematisch. Gruss Andreas König 21:14, 2. Okt 2006 (CEST)


Thank you for the response. Please allow me to answer in English. I don't mean to appear argumentative, but surely this historical document, the diary of Friedrich Kellner, has more place on Wikipedia than Paris Hilton and 1 Night in Paris. Please look again at the links on the page. At the JLU-Gießen link you will find this citation about the diary, which this university will be publishing. Dr. Sascha Feuchert, Justus Liebig Universität: “Eines der umfangreichsten geheimen Tagebücher aus der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus wird von der Arbeitsstelle Holocaustliteratur veröffentlicht. Das insgesamt zehn Bände umfassende Tagebuch des ehemaligen Laubacher (Oberhessen) Justizangestellten Friedrich Kellner wurde über Jahre hinweg im Verborgenen zusammengetragen. Das besondere daran ist die Collagentechnik, mit der der Autor z.B. aufgeklebte Zeitungsausschnitte mit Kommentaren und Hintergrundinformationen ergänzt. Das Tagebuch deckt auf, was man als "Normalbürger" des Dritten Reichs von den Verbrechen, aber auch der alltäglichen Ideologisierung wissen konnte, wenn man denn wollte..” http://www.holocaustliteratur.de/index.php?content=20&category=13

I do hope you will find the editing that I have done to the webpage will keep this page from being erased. Can we not work to improve the site, rather than to erase it and leave the field to Paris Hilton?

sorry, but in german language Wikipedia there are criteria for "relevance" (see WP:RK), to be included into the wiki, the topic has to be well known to public - which Paris Hilton cercainly is, but this diary not. To be included, this dictionary must get public attention, the publishing by a univerity certainly is not sufficient. In english wikipedia -in contast - all non-nonsense articles are accepted. I think, you should read Wikipedia:Selbstdarsteller too, this article is about writing about oneself or about topics close to oneself - which is strongly discouraged, because if one has a personal connection whith the topic, one will nearly never be able to write a neutral artike, but will overestimate the importance. We see wikipedia not as a kind of forum to make a new publication better known. I strongly recommend do follow my advice to write only some sentences in the article about the author. 22:04, 2. Okt 2006 (CEST)

Thank you for responding in English. I do appreciate it. The Friedrich Kellner diary is only now becoming known, but in this past year it has been exhibited in a presidential library and in a Holocaust museum in America, and also in the Heimatmuseum in Laubach. The diary will be published as a book by a German university, and in the meantime, a documentary film has been produced about the diary, and the film is to have its American premiere the presidential library that gave the diary its first public showing. Certainly this constitutes recognition of the diary and indicates more recognition to come. When Bo Didley and Henry Winkler and Wittus Witt, who have web pages in German wiki, are long forgotten, the Friedrich Kellner diary will still be an important educational tool. And this has nothing to do with the fact that Friedrich Kellner was my grandfather. I am a retired university professor, used to being objective, and the Friedrich Kellner diary is an important prime source historical document -- despite the fact it is only recently getting attention. Scott Kellner (Rskellner 22:33, 2. Okt 2006 (CEST))

so if you would incloude THIS facts instead of excessive citations maybe a article might be possible, but i ma not the one to decide but the community. But why a separate article and not a paraggraph in the author's article ? Andreas König 22:40, 2. Okt 2006 (CEST)

Thank you for the advice. I will edit the page again to include more information about the worthiness of the website. The reason I didn't add the diary entries to the original Friedrich Kellner page was because I did not want to go beyond the allowed space limits granted to any single page. I consider your reservations about the diary page to be most helpful in getting me to make it a better page, worthy of being an encyclopedic entry. If my command of German were better, I'm sure I wouldn't have made such mistakes when originating the diary page. I will do everything I can to improve the page, hoping it won't get erased, and I am grateful for any help you might give me. Thanks again, Scott (Rskellner 23:01, 2. Okt 2006 (CEST))

ok, but there is no such thing as a space limit to one single page, many articles consist of up to 20 or 30 screen pages. WP is not a lexicon wich provides only a very short information, but a encyclopedia which wants to cover most of the important details of the topic too. So i f you want you mistaces in the new tect corected, please feel free to contact me. It would bee best, to edit the article in user namespace e.g. Benutzer:Rskellner/Tagebuch des Friedrich Kellner) first --> in user namespace it will be not deleted, then correct and the move to article namespace. Andreas König 08:54, 3. Okt 2006 (CEST)

I greatly appreciate the offer. I have been working on the site for most of the evening, and I believe I may have finally gotten it to a good state. Perhaps you can take another look. For instance, I just added an entire section entitled "Intitutes expressing an interest in the diary," which may help alleviate to some extent the lack of typical citations. Primarily, this diary is only now (after all these many years) getting public recognition. I did not realize I could build the site on my User page. That certainly would have been a smarter thing for me to have done than the clumsy way I went about it. I only hope that people will review the "new" site, and read the links (such as the two-page web site about the diary at the George Bush Presidential Library). I can't believe that we've got Jailhouse Rock and 1 Night in Paris as web pages, and I am losing sleep that the diary of Friedrich Kellner will be eradicated. Don't give up on me, please. (Rskellner 09:10, 3. Okt 2006 (CEST))

I've just created a duplicate of the diary page at Benutzer:Rskellner/Tagebuch des Friedrich Kellner. If there are still errors, please feel free to correct them. If you have the time to do it, that is. I don't want to impose on your time. Thanks, Scott.

All for nothing. The site was arbitrarily erased. Paris and Elvis win. So much for standards. Thank you anyway for offering to help. I've merged the page with the Friedrich Kellner site. (Rskellner 15:41, 3. Okt 2006 (CEST))

I think, the problem is caused by

  1. really excessive citation of parts of the diary = 50% of the text to be deleted
  2. a lot of "references" which might be suitable in a application to a job, but there is nothing to find about importance for the public = 30% to be deleted
  3. redundant information to Friedrich Keller - further 10% to be deleted
  4. some sentences representing a special "point ov View" some % to be deleted

--> the leftover could easily be integrated in the autor's article.

I think it would be useful to engage in some work in the Wikipedia (small changes n existng articles etc. ) to get a idea about what is a suitable article for a encyxclopedia and wat is not. Ich would recommend to leave this text in your user namespace, because I think it would be deleted again in article namespace. Andreas König 15:56, 3. Okt 2006 (CEST)

I just followed your advice -- when I read the above, I went immediately to the Friedrich Kellner page, where I had made a separate section for the diary, and got rid of half of the citations and many of the "references." Thank you very much for the advice and for your patience. But consider, what kind of silliness is all this when Jailhouse Rock and 1 Night in Paris get their own pages and not the diary. And now I have to worry that someone will come along and tag the Friedrich Kellner page with "Erase". Truly perverse.(Rskellner 16:31, 3. Okt 2006 (CEST))

not perverse, just human....a lot of people have interest in Jailhouse rock so we have a article. You should not expect other peopl to share your interest in your own ancestor...Andreas König 16:33, 3. Okt 2006 (CEST)

Except I'm not talking about my ancestor. I'm talking about a prime source historical document recognized by major universities and museums, versus a porn film and a rock and roll song -- and heaven only knows how many other silly Wikipedia entries. But my complaining is not productive, I understand that. Again, I thank you for trying to enlighten me. I do appreciate it. (Rskellner 16:53, 3. Okt 2006 (CEST))