Diskussion:Friedrich Kellner

message: Ich habe im Text folgende Abschnitte stilistisch geändert (ich hoffe: verbessert) - I carried out the following changes (I hope: improvements) in the text:
*einziges Kind -> das einzige Kind
*Rekonvaleszenz -> Erholung
*der Sohn - gestrichen
*ehe -> bevor
*und kommenden... -> sowie
*gefüllt -> geschrieben
*vom 1945 ->  von 1945
*bis zum 1960 -> bis 1960
*um es zu übersetzen und zu veröffentlichen -> um es übersetzen und veröffentlichen zu lassen
*Erster -> erster
Ausserdem bin ich dafür, nur die Institute zu erwähnen, die Interesse an dem Tagebuch haben, und nicht für jedes Institut ein Zitat, das inhaltlich nicht soviel bringt, zu erwähnen. Das macht den Eindruck, als müsse krankhaft bewiesen werden, dass das Tagebuch bedeutsam ist. Wenn man sie dalässt, sollten sie alle ins Deutsche übersetzt werden, was ich machen würde. - 
Furthermore, I'd propose to simply mention the institutes that have expressed an interest in the diary, not to give a quote for every single one of them. It gives the impression of having desperately to prove that the Diary is in fact worth mentioning. If they are to be left in the text, they needed to be translated into German, which I would do. Blur4760 23:13, 29. Okt. 2006 (CET)
replies: text: Hallo Blur4760, ich sehe das ebenso wie du, dass der Artikel nocheiner gründlichen Renovierung bedarf. Die Aktivitäten von R.S. Kellner erinnern schon fast an Spam, wenn man sieht, auf wie vielen Seiten er hier und in der englischen Wikipedia sein Thema anbringt. Die ganzen Institute sollten zugunsten eines Satzes wie z.B. Weltweit haben zahlreiche historische Institute, wie das (...hier die zwei, drei wichtigsten) ihr Interesse an einer Veröffentlichung bekundet. zusammengestrichen werden. Die seitenlange Darstellung von Originalzitaten entspricht nicht den Wikipedia-Gepflogenheiten und sollten wohl eher zu Wikisource verschoben werden. Weiterhin sind nach WP:WEB Weblinks im Fließtext nicht erwünscht, um die Unterscheidung zwischen unter freier Lizenz stehenden Inhalten der Wikipedia und urehberrechtsgeschützen Inhalten fremder Seiten deutlich zu machen. An dem Artikel gibt es also wirklich viel zu tun, wozu mir eigentlich die Lust fehlt. Vielleicht kannst du dich ja mal dranwagen, ich unterstütze dich dann auch. --Martin Zeise  ✉ 21:22, 30. Okt. 2006 (CET)
replies: text: Please excuse my use of English.  First, thank you for your interest in this website, and I do wish to have it fit in with the Wikipedia format, and I will do what I can to satisfy your own concept of what that is.  I worked with a very nice man named Michael Beckenkamp from Freiberg am Neckar to make the text accurate and interesting.  But now much of our work has been erased.  I can understand your remarks about the "Institute" section.  I will not challenge that erasure.  But I do not believe the diary entries are out of place -- especially not when Wikipedia is filled with pages about song lyrics, such as Love Me Tender and Comes a Time, even sites about pornograph movies: Paris Hilton.  As for my activity in placing references to my grandfather throughout the English and German pages, that is not spam -- that is simply hard work to create links to an important historical document.  A few of those links have been removed for being non-instructive for the site.  For instance, Michael Beckenkamp removed a reference to Friedrich Kellner's mother that I placed in Bissingen (where she was born), and he explained to me why, and I have learned from that, and I have not tried to replace those removals.  Can the diary entries be reinstated?  Dr. Robert Scott Kellner, College Station, Texas rskellner@cox.net Rskellner 06:43, 6. Nov. 2006 (CET)
replies: text: Guten Tag allerseits :-) - @ Martin: meines Erachtens tut der Vorwurf des Spamming dem Verfasser Unrecht. Sein Einwand, dass Originalzitate auch an anderen Stellen in der Wikipedia gang und gäbe sind, hat etwas für sich. - @ Scott, I think a good solution would be to confine yourself to just a few typical quotes, uploaad the rest to wikisource, and refer to there with a line at the end of the article, something like Weitere Originalzitate aus dem Tagebuch. Cheers from Stuttgart to everybody --Mussklprozz 12:16, 6. Nov. 2006 (CET)

text: Thank you for helping me yet again, Michael, I sure am glad to hear from you.  I will do what you and Martin say about wikisource.  Thanks very much.  ScottRskellner 15:00, 6. Nov. 2006 (CET)
replies: text: Dear Robert, I'd like to explain my changes I have done yesterda a little bit more. At first I'd like to note that (as far as I can see) nobody wanted to delete this article. Hence I do not understand why you take the comparison to Paris Hilton or whomever. Although Mrs. Hilton is not relevant for me there might be plenty of people who like to get neutral information about her. I consider Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia in difference to the traditional encyclopaedias not only for a certain layer of the society (as we call ist "Bildungsbürgertum") but for everybody.As you already have noticed Wikipedia articles are not simple websites where you can put information in every possible way as you like. Beside four basic priciples (Wikipedia:Grundprinzipien), which apply to every Wikipedia there are a lot of rules which might differ from language to language. The most appropriate rules for my changes are described in Wikipedia:Weblinks and in Wikipedia:Zitate. The first one says, that external Weblinks should only be placed if there is additional information available. Furthermore, external links should not be placed within teh plain text but only at the end below the headlines "references" or "weblinks" to show the reader that these links are not within the responsibilty of Wikipedia. Regarding your complain about the removing of the quotations (diary entries) I'd like to note that large quotations are not welcome within a Wicipedia article as you can read under the above given wikilink. There is a special project within the Wikimedia cosmos called Wikiquote or (as Mussklprozz suggests) Wikisource where you can put quotations at large scale, even the whole book. With special links we can then point from the Wikipedia article to Wikiquote.I hope now you can understand a little bit better the changes I made. Don't hesitate to write if you have further questions or remarks. Best regards --Martin Zeise  ✉ 12:35, 6. Nov. 2006 (CET)

text: Your explanation was very helpful, Martin, and it has convinced me that I need to let the changes you have made remain as they are.  I realize my reply to you yesterday had a note of frustration in it, and I apologize.  I will look into placing the quotes elsewhere, and I will also try to adjust the text of the article to make it as "encyclopedic" in tone as I can.  It was very good of you to respond so quickly and in such detail, and I appreciate it, and I thank you.  Scott (I use my middle name).Rskellner 15:00, 6. Nov. 2006 (CET)
thread_title: Stil, Interesse am Tagebuch

message: sondern müssen erst aus den Versionen rausgesucht werden?--BKSlink 18:17, 7. Jan. 2010 (CET)
replies: text: Die hatte der Hauptautor vor etwa drei Jahren gelöscht, was ich damals wohl übersehen hatte. Ich habe die Beiträge jetzt wiederhergestellt. --Martin Zeise  ✉ 14:46, 10. Jan. 2010 (CET)
thread_title:  Weshalb sind die Beträge auf dieser Artikeldisku nicht auf Anhieb einzusehen? 

message: Wenn die Tagebücher geheim waren: Wie hatte er sie gegen eventuelle Hausdurchsuchungen gesichert? --PatrickBrauns (Diskussion) 18:16, 22. Jun. 2021 (CEST)
thread_title:  Geheime Tagebücher