Benutzer Diskussion:Aboudaqn

Es begann am 25. November 2011 --Aboudaqn 22:51, 25. Nov. 2011 (CET)

Your contribution to the article Heckerlied

Dear Aboudaqn, Thanks for your contribution to the article Heckerlied on 22 April, 2016. Unfortunately, the linguistic quality of the translated quotation is so poor that we cannot maintain it in the present form. Could you please give us here the original english wording from the book Cold Friday by Whittaker Chambers? Then I will be able to make a good german translation. --BurghardRichter (Diskussion) 20:37, 22. Apr. 2016 (CEST)

Dear Aboudaqn, Thank you for giving the original English wording from the Chambers book on my user discussion! I have now re-inserted your contribution of April 22 in the article Heckerlied in a (hopefully) better translation. --BurghardRichter (Diskussion) 19:16, 2. Mai 2016 (CEST)

Your contribution to the article Whittaker Chambers

Dear Aboudaqn, From me also thanks for your contribution to the article Whittaker Chambers on 22 April, 2016. Unfortunately, the linguistic quality of your changes is so poor that I cannot maintain it without the original english text or a hint to the source where you have taken the informations from for a better tranlation. --StefanMeister (Diskussion) 02:46, 26. Apr. 2016 (CEST)

I meant to write: "[He was a] writer and editor as well as communist spy and government witness. He was known for testifying against Alger Hiss 1948-1950 in the Hiss Case, precursor to the McCarthyism of the early 1950s. Chambers remains a controversial historical figure. Most historians consider Chambers from a partisan viewpoint: depending on the political orientation of the observer Chambers (or Hiss) was either "hero" or "liar". Thank you for the kind help. --Aboudaqn (Diskussion) 04:35, 27. Apr. 2016 (CEST)

Hello Aboudaqn. It is ok that you answer to me on my discussion page but I think it is easier if you reply on your own discussion page instead of copying text around. Writting to someones discussion page will set the page normaly onto the watchlist of the writter. So if you answer me here I will get a email-notification that you have changed your own discussion page and I will be noticed. So I will continue to answer you here.

In principle all your above statements and the changes you have done to the german article were already within it. So I have decided to revert your changes cause the article was not readable anymore. I have noticed that you have tried to bring more clarification and more details to the article but as I already wrote the linguistic quality was not good enough to express such details and clarifications. Also I have missed the sources you have taken the information from. I have noticed in the english article that you have done quite a lot of good contributons and I think you have taken the infos from there and tried to translate them. I recommend to write in English to the german discussion page of Whittaker Chamber what you believe should be improved in the article and what is your intention. Some autoreviewer or editors watching the article may read this and answer you - maybe even making the changes for you. --StefanMeister (Diskussion) 21:19, 28. Apr. 2016 (CEST)

Stefanmeister, greetings. I do not believe any particular source (or citations) makes a statement about Chambers as my new one for the top-level of the German entry on Whittaker Chambers. (Nor does the English entry on Chambers, for that matter.) All I did was rework the original German material into a more neutral and encyclopedic overview. If you look over the wiki-entry Bibliography of Whittaker Chambers (which I composed), you will see scores of books on the case: all but a handful are politically partisan as pro-Hiss or pro-Chambers. If this does not suffice, then you may leave the current entry as-is. (I apologize again for my poor German, which I studied years ago but have not maintained.) Sincerely - --Aboudaqn (Diskussion) 23:30, 28. Apr. 2016 (CEST)