Re: [Flags] DE: Spartakist flag?
António Martins-Tuválkin
> it would be interesting, when we had discussed it.
> As it is a historical flag, I am not in charge, but either
> ask Pete.
What Elias is saying is that he is «almost certain we have dicussed»
these flags in the past. (I wish I could run a search in the FotW-ml
archives for a few keywords.) What is expected from the “German
editorial team”, apparently from Pete Loeser, as this is historial
material is a clarification over this claim. Which can be either:
1. Yes, that subject was discussed in FotW-ml and it was dully edited
in our DE pages exactly in section so-and-so or our page so-and-so, or
2. yes, that subject was discussed in FotW-ml and it currently awaits
its turn to be edited, expected to be so at or under page so-and-so,
or
3. no, that subject was never discussed in FotW-ml, or at least
there’s no trace of it — neither in the edited pages nor in the
backlogged material.
Which is is, Pete?
-- ____.
António MARTINS-Tuválkin | ()|
<tuva...@gmail.com> Não me invejo de quem tem |####|
PT-1500-111 LISBOA carros, parelhas e montes |
+351 934 821 700, +351 212 463 477 só me invejo de quem bebe |
facebook.com/profile.php?id=744658416 a água em todas as fontes |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
De sable uma fonte e bordadura escaqueada de jalde e goles, por timbre a
bandeira, por mote o 1º verso acima, e por grito de guerra "Mi rajtas!".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
António Martins-Tuválkin
> It doesn't sound like anyone had a discussion quite like
> what Elias remembered,
Well, what about the following FotW-ml messages?
FotW-yg #158123 from Jan Mertens on Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:30:34 +0100
re: "GST Wehrspartakiade (former East Germany)"
FotW-yg #158353 from Jan Mertens on Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:30:34 +0100
re: "Re: GST Wehrspartakiade (former East Germany)"
FotW-yg #160795 from Jan Mertens on Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:05:19 +0200
re: "Re: GST Wehrspartakiade (former East Germany)"
FotW-yg #133399 from Jan Mertens on Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:08:56 +0100
re: "DTSB (former GDR, DE)"
FotW-yg #133624 from Jan Mertens on Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:48:07 +0100
re: "Re: DTSB (former GDR, DE)"
Where is this material, I ask again? Backlogged or edited? If edited,
where exactly? If neither, why?
> but whatever we do have about the interwar Communists is a
> bit confusing to someone as ignorant as myself.
You mean it was not well edited.
> Is that right? If so, I'd suggest links to and from KPD to the other
> pages, if not merging pages. (And perhaps the existing link form the
> Spartacus League page to the Maoists is not so appropriate?)
You are being too polite, Jonathan. You are pointing out editing
mistakes and yet, if you ask the Director, the only problem in FotW-ws
is delayed backlogs (I was informed of that once again, upon learning
I’m not the PE editor anymore, maybe BO also — and that those two
assignments will be apparently given to an editor with a proven track
of fast editing… and an error-ridden one, too.)
So, apparently, I am the only one complaining about any other kind of
substandard editing (apart from delayed backlogs) around here, because
complaints worded in a polite, reasonable manner like this message
from Johnathan fall under the radar or the People In Charge. One needs
to rip one’s clothes and howl to moon to get some attention, it seems,
and, ever since 1998, I am the only one doing so — with a few
exceptions of people who did that for a couple weeks or months and
then left the project altogether, adding to those who left the project
altogether taking with them complaints never worded or too softly so.
Back when our DE pages were properly edited there was only one
question to ask: Is this material already edited by Santiago, or is
this material waiting to be edited by Santiago?
In 2006 this was not good enough anymore, and from then on we had a
more complex question set to ask: Is this material waiting to be
edited by Jarig? Or was this material already edited by Jarig? If so,
was this material properly edited by Jarig? If neither — is it because
Jarig doesn’t like the contributer and tossed off the said material?
(this was stated clearly onlist by Jarig himself, concerning the VotY
2012; other FotWers may have had this treatment), or because of some
technical glitch? (the kind of technical glitches that filled the DE
pages with all types of HTML garbled garbage, till this very day).
After Jarig’s sad departure, what are the questions about DE editing?
Well, I have one: Why wasn’t this assignment, clearly one of the most
complex and demanding of the whole site, given to be edited to any or
all the people who could do it properly? Namely Peter Hans, Marcus, or
Jan? (And/or why wasn’t Santiago asked to come back, but that bridge
was throughly burnt back then.)
(And now, back to editing.)
António Martins-Tuválkin
> That may be a question worth asking,
It may indeed. If Jan Mertens’ contributions, the FotW project, and
Vexillology in general are worth any respect at all, then this *is* a
question worth asking. If a shallow understanding of politeness as
exemption of accountability among FotW-ws editors trumps the
importance of Jan Mertens’ contributions, the FotW project, and
Vexillology in general — well, then indeed this may be an unwelcome
question. I’m still asking it, though.
> but as far as I can tell, it's relationship with Elias' question is
> extremely tangential.
Five days ago, Elias wrote:
>> I am almost certain we have dicussed flags used by German
>> Communists and Spartakists in the time following World War I,
>> but I can't find anything on that subject on de%7D.html in
>> FOTW-ws.
In spite of statements on the contrary from two DE editors, two
threads by Jan Mertens, from 2010 and 2008, were found in our mailing
list archives and are indeed not (yet?) edited in FotW-ws. It is not
tangential, it is spot on.
Then Jonathan quoted and replied:
>>> but whatever we do have about the interwar Communists
>>> is a bit confusing to someone as ignorant as myself.
>>
>> You mean it was not well edited.
>
> I suppose such a situation usually occurs when there is room for
> the editor to improve the pages in question.
Everybody knows by now I am mean and you’re a nice guy. No problem
there. (Or else you get the badge for irony and sarcasm, which may not
be very effective or pedagogical, but surely feels bitterly “good”:
«Room to improve», hehe!)
The problem here is that the editorial quality of the DE pages has
been decreasing steadily since 2006 and the only improvement has been
reduced backlogs, so we’re told. However these two misplaced (?)
threads suggest that said reducing is done at the cost of discarding
contributions willy nilly — as they may be 2 threads among many, many
more. *That* is what worries me.
> so it should be pretty obvious why I didn't and won't try to tackle
> any broader issues as part of this thread.
It is not obvious for me, because I like things clearly stated.
Yes, I know that 20 years from now we will be editing FotW-ws as it
should have been from the beggining, plucking lost gems from 35-year
old mailing list threads and not wasting time explaining each other
why sources and links are important and why HTML constructs like
"<p> (contents).<br>" should never be
used. But I wanted to do that right now, with the people we have now.
Grumbler as I may be, I do believe in self improvement. (Hm, however I
never saw a bad FotW-ws editor actually improving qualitatively — you
may have a point there.)
Okay then, Johnathan (and others): Let me know when you feel the
thread is right. Meanwhile, Jan — do keep contributing DE stuff. Some
of it *may* end up edited soon, some of it maybe well edited. Whatever
is discarded (because no backlogs are allowed!) will be harvested
again 20 years from now, that’s a promise.