Benutzer Diskussion:Einar Moses Wohltun

Hallo, Willkommen bei Wikipedia!

Es freut mich, dass Du zu uns gestoßen bist. In Hilfe und FAQ kannst Du Dir mal einen Überblick über unsere Zusammenarbeit verschaffen. Fragen kannst Du am besten hier stellen, ich (und die meisten Wikipedianer) helfen gerne.

Mein persönlicher Tipp für Deinen Einstieg in Wikipedia: Sei mutig ;-) Thomas S. 12:50, 20. Mai 2005 (CEST)

Portal Punk

Hallo Einar...! Besitzt du Lust und Interesse an einem Portal Punk mitzuarbeiten? Einen Prototyp gibts auf Benutzer:Glückspirat/Portal Punk. Ich würde mich freuen, wenn du mitmachst! --Freibeuter der Freude 21:14, 20. Jun 2005 (CEST)

Linguistik

Hi,

da du dich anscheinend auch mit dem Thema beschäftigst, wollte ich einmal auf Wikipedia:Wikiprojekt Linguistik verweisen, wo ich versucht habe eine Taxonomie der Teildisziplinen vorzunehmen. Es wäre schön wenn du dein Wissen dort einbringen könntest, ich bin mir an vielen Ecken noch unsicher. --Trickstar 14:06, 4. Nov 2005 (CET)

Vorschaufunktion

Hallo, mir ist aufgefallen, dass Du kurz hintereinander mehrere kleine Bearbeitungen am gleichen Artikel vorgenommen hast. Es wäre schön, wenn Du in Zukunft die Vorschaufunktion benutzen würdest (siehe Bild), da bei jeder Speicherung der komplette Artikel einzeln in der Datenbank gespeichert wird. So bleibt die Versionsgeschichte für die Artikel übersichtlich, und die Server werden in punkto Speicherplatz und Zugriffszahl entlastet.

Viele Grüße.--Zaungast 11:45, 26. Jan 2006 (CET)

Embraer EMB-200 Ipanema

Ja, das wäre was. Ich schreib mal einen Rumpfartikel. Oder ich übertreib es mal wieder ;-) Gegen willkürliche Veränderungen deiner Benutzerseite kannst du dich schützen indem du die sperren lässt. Bei einem wohlwollenden Admin deiner Wahl. Ich etwa. Wenn du was verändert haben willst, kein Problem, einer der fast 200 Admins wird zu Diensten sein.

Andere Sache: Ist das vielleicht was für dich -> Portal:Luftfahrt? -- Stahlkocher 20:48, 9. Jun 2006 (CEST)

Interkulturelle Kommunkation

Hallo, hab deinen Namen auf der Diskussionseite der Interkulturellen Kommunikation entdeckt und bitte dich um Unterstützung bei einem Wikipedia nahen Projekt http://www.espagne.de/wiki - Ein Wiki und eine Materialsammlung nur zum Thema der Interkulturellen Kommunikation.

Ältester Mann der Welt

Hallo Einar. Der Artikel zum ältesten Mann der Welt ist gerettet. --PlusPedia 16:46, 1. Sep. 2010 (CEST)

Benutzerseite schützen

Ich glaube, du kannst die Benutzerseite wie normale Artikel vor nicht eingeloggten Usern schützen (lassen). Ggf. müsste ein Admin darum gebeten werden. Dein anliegen ist nun aber schon fast 5 Jahre her. - Ich wollte aber nur freundlich sein. ^^ --StarSizes 09:51, 27. Januar 2012 (Berlin)

Einwohnerentwicklung Chemnitz 1914-1918

Hallo Einar, du verbesserst in letzter Zeit oft die Einwohnerentwicklung von Chemnitz. Kannst du zufällig beim bestehenden Problem mit der Einwohnerentwicklung im Ersten Weltkrieg helfen? Ich habe das Problem unter Diskussion:Einwohnerentwicklung von Chemnitz#Kriegsverluste 1914 - 1918 ? erläutert und auch unter Portal Diskussion:Chemnitz#Zahlen der Einwohnerentwicklung - Kriegsverluste im Ersten Weltkrieg - Hilfe erwünscht nochmal aufgegriffen. Vielleicht bist du besser mit der Zählweise vertraut oder kennst noch eine Quelle die uns da weiterhilft. Oder ist das einfach falsch formuliert und die Zahlen ergeben doch irgendwie Sinn? -- Lord van Tasm «₪» ‣P:MB 10:45, 5. Feb. 2014 (CET)

Hallo Lord van Tasm, vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich kann nichts versprechen, weil der 1. Weltkrieg eigentlich nicht mein Thema ist. Allerdings werde ich schauen, ob ich etwas zur oben genannten Frage finden kann. Ich habe den Artikel zur Einwohnerentwicklung von Chemnitz bearbeitet, weil ich Quellen zu den Ergebnissen der Volkszählung 2011 gefunden hatte, die ich eingearbeitet und mit mehreren Microedits nachbearbeitet habe.--Einar Moses Wohltun (Diskussion) 17:26, 5. Feb. 2014 (CET)

Jüdische Strömungen

Ich sah deine Kommentar am Diskussion:Masorti. Ist das Thema noch relevant für dich? Es gibt hier ein schreklicher Quatsch in den ganzen Sache, und ich suche ein erfahrehner Benutzer der kann etwas damit tun.AddMore (Diskussion) 13:41, 17. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

Hallo AddMore, ja, das Thema ist relevant, da ich die Artikel zu diesem Thema „Strömungen im Judentum“ verbessern möchte. Leider kenne ich mich mit diesem Thema nicht aus. Wenn es allerdings zuverlässige deutschsprachige oder englischsprachige Quellen zu diesem Thema gibt, kann ich helfen, die Artikel rund um dieses Thema zu verbessern.--Einar Moses Wohltun (Diskussion) 12:56, 18. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

Wieso ist dein Englisch? Ich bitte um Entschuldigung, ich verlass Wien als ich 5 Jahre alt war. Kann ich dir am Englo schreiebn?AddMore (Diskussion) 13:18, 18. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

Keine Ursache. Allerdings würde ich dich bitten, die Fragen umzuformulieren oder auf Englisch zu stellen. Leider kann ich die Fragen „Wieso ist dein Englisch?“ und „Kann ich dir am Englo schreiebn?“ nicht verstehen. Falls du meinst: „Wie gut ist dein Englisch?“ und „Kann ich dir auf Englisch schreiben?“, so lautet meine Antwort: „Du kannst mir gerne auf Englisch schreiben.“ (Feel free to contact me in English.)--Einar Moses Wohltun (Diskussion) 15:02, 18. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

LOL. (I'm sorry in advance for the incoming bombardment upon your talk page): Anyway, a terrible mess reigns in wiki.de. in all these matters, so much that I had to start editing in spite of my broken German. To your comment in Masorti: there are three major "denominations" in modern Judaism. Orthodoxes Judentum, Konservatives Judentum (AKA positive-historical/Masorti) and Reform/Liberales Judentum/Progressives Judentum.

Let's start with Reform. The various names are used in variation by country: in Europe, "Liberal" means what "Reform" means in USA, and "Progressive" goes for both. This is not an single organization: in Britain, there are both Liberal and Reform currents, and while they're organizationally separate and the latter a bit more old-fashioned, they share exactly the same theology. All various Reform groups - American Reform Judaism, British Liberal and Reform, Dutch Liberal, German Liberal/Progressive; what unites them is, basically, their acceptance of Abraham Geiger's ideas - are united in the World Union for Progressive Judaism. They are not alone there; in the 1980s the Rekonstruktionistisches Judentum, which has a different theology, joined in. Since then, "Progressive Judaism" stopped being an ideal name for all Reform/Liberal (should be "Geigerian", really) streams. I have no idea why this wikipedia had separate articles for each of the last three (Reformjudentum/Liberales Judentum and recently Progressives Judentum which I merged into the World Union). I turned Liberales into the interwiki of all the "Reform Judaism" articles across the wikis, for it's both the common name in Germany and describes the denomination best. Reformjudentum attempts to describe all non-Orthodox forms of Judaism, which is both Orthocentric - like "non-Catholic Christianity" - and highly inaccurate. The Conservatives, Reform and Reko. have very different ideas and history. I saw here in many places that all non-Ortho. believe in a "Fortschreitender Offenbarung", but it's true only for Reform. It's also confusing because in many places here people who wrote "Reformjudentum" meant the American Reform Judaism (i.e. what you here call Liberal), but it leads to that one.

In addition, there is an article titled Masorti; this designation means both "traditional" (i.e. lax Orthodox Jew, an important social category in Israel]] and another name for Conservative, popular outside the USA. Again no idea what they meant when they wrote it. "Masorti Reformgemeinde" is a misnommer, like "Catholic Calvinist parish".

Now, to conclude all this: I'd suggest, if you're interested in clearing the entire thing, to merge Reformjudentum into Liberales Judentum (very little good info in the former) and Masorti to Konservatives Judentum (or conversely to delete the article and rewrite it to cover the topic of en:Shomer Masoret, that is lax Orthodox Jews in Israel.) Sorry for the mess on your talkpage, but I was extremely irritated by the sheer nonsense, have no other words, which I saw here in numerous articles. I don't know if you'd like to act upon any of my recommendations, but God I was glad to see someone who was also confused by all these inaccurate definitions. Again, my apologies for bothering you with all this.AddMore (Diskussion) 18:24, 18. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

Thank you very much for shedding light on this variety of names for Jüdische Strömungen. I am happy to have a personal contact who shares his/her knowledge on this matter with me. Before I start to rework the articles you mention (in the German WP), I would like to ask you one question: Are the articles on the same topics in the English Wikipedia reliable references from your point of view? Plus, I want to let you know this: I cannot promise to act in a rush. The time frame until all this will be reworked with a logical terminology and accurate definitions may take several months. In my experience, most articles are written by several people. If I just start merging or rewriting a whole article, there might be other users of the German WP who won't be happy. In the worst case unhappy users will undo changes and lock the article, so that it can only be edited by administrators. On the other hand, several months will be still shorter than the three years that it took from the moment when I posted my questions on these discussion pages until I received an answer to these questions. Thank you again. And never mind about my talkpage.--Einar Moses Wohltun (Diskussion) 22:08, 18. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

Thank you. I really had to write this down somewhere. There is no need to act upon this (not that I think there'll be much resistance; few seem to care, like everything on wiki). The situation in English Wikipedia is even worse than here. I'm lazying a bit, but I'll fix that in short time: I've already put rewrite templates on everything. There were several edit wars a few years ago, there, I see, and they have a mess which eclipses here by a thousandfold. In a while - the last month made me realize how I've let my German go - I'll remaster the grammar and return here. The only reasonable sources are, if you're comfortable with Google Translate, is Hebrew wikipedia (just tried that, seems like a mess). However, I must say that Reformjudentum is 80-90% about the history - and what's described, like Jacobson, Charlestone, Pittsburgh 1886 etc. belongs on Liberales Judentum (of course, you may also turn Reformjud. into the main article and Liberal a redirect) - and practice of Reform Judaism, not anything else. Laying stress on ethics, seen there as a 'main character', is purely Reform; neither Conservative nor Reconstructionist. Reformj. should really become a redirect. As you see in the article of Abraham Geiger, he is described as main thinker of Reformjudentum, though neither Con. nor Reco. took him as inspiration; the author of the article meant Reformj.=Liberal J. Whatever you'd like to do with all that info, if at all, at least it's now explained somewhere. Thank you, cheers.AddMore (Diskussion) 23:12, 18. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

It tried to visualize your description above in a table based on the three major denominations of Juaism on the one hand and the most prominent regions on the other. Does this table correctly reflect your view on the categorization of these terms?

Region	Orthodox	Geigerian (your umbrella term)	examples of Geigerian	Conserverative (American umbrella term)	examples of groups cagorized as Conserverative
USA	Orthodox	Reform	?	Conservative	Frankelians (a.k.a positive-historical), Reconstructionist (Kaplanians, sometimes referred to as "fourth denomination", according to the article about Kaplan in DE WP, some Reconstructionist congregations are members of the World Union for Progressive Judaism)
UK	Orthodox	Progressive (This term has been diluted since the Reconstructionist movement joint the World Union of Progressive Judaism)	two groups: Reform/Liberal	?	?
Germany	Orthodox	Liberal	?	traditionally seen as Liberal, recently called "Konservatives Judentum" based on the development in the USA	Masorti-Gemeinden
Israel	Orthodox	?	?	Masorti (This designation means both "traditional", i.e. lax Orthodox Jew, an important social category in Israel, and another name for Conservative)	?

I have another question: Do you know whether the term Progressive Judaism is derived from "progressive revelation" (fortschreitende Offenbarung)? --Einar Moses Wohltun (Diskussion) 12:15, 19. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

Wow, truly thanks for all the time and effort. I'll answer in regards to table first. American Reform Judaism, which embraces Geiger's thoughts, has a wide spectrum within it but it's all called Reform Judaism. no other things. The Reconstructionists are neither Conservative nor Reform, they stand on their own - they left the Con. in the 1980s and joined the WUPJ, but have their own philosophy, unrelated to both. In Britian, both the Reform and the Liberals are sometimes described as Progressive on account of being members of the WUPJ. The Liberals resemble American Reform Judaism, which is radical in its nonobservance; the group was founded by Claude Montefiore, an adherent of Geigerian thought. British Reform is made up basically of the descendants of German refugees from Liberal communities who arrived post 1933. They emulate the ways of the German Einheitsgemeinden, where Liberal rabbis of Geiger's stock were forced to cater to all tastes, including conservative and Orthodox, and are therefore more traditional. In America, there were no Einheitsgemeinden and Geiger's disciples like David Einhorn (Rabbiner) were free to implement a radical vision.

To put it short: in America Liberal=Reform, Positive-Historical=Conservative, Reconstructionist on its own. In Europe, Reform=Liberal, Positive-Historical/Conservative=often Masorti (like in Britain; Con. just love the name), and there are no Recon's I've heard on. In Israel, "Masorti" means a lax Orthodox Jew - like a Catholic who eats meat at Lent and attends Mass once a year, but is certain the Pope (=Orthodox rabbis like Owadja Josef, who had many of this sort vote for his party) is infallible. They are about 20-30% of the Jewish population in the country. They are NOT a denomination but just lax. The few Conservative Jews in Israel officially call themselves "Masorti", and the Orthodox are really irritated by that. BTW, like the Reform have the WUPJ, the Conservatives worldwide have a body called "Masorti Olami" (Global 'masorti'). I add a somewhat long history for clarity.AddMore (Diskussion) 19:04, 19. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

Hope it's not too long

In 1810, Israel Jacobson opened a modern synagogue in Seesen, with many aesthetic innovations but no ideology. In 1818 his supporters opened the Hamburg Temple and wrote for it a radical prayer book, which expressed the earliest tenet of Reform Judaism - and only Reform, not Conservative etc. -, universalized messianism. Too complex to dwell upon how exactly. His involvement in the affair made many regard Jacobson aposteriori as founder of Reform, but historians like Michael A. Meyer dismissed this, pointing out he was little of a theoretician.

20 years later, a generation of young rabbis led primarily by Abraham Geiger reformulated Jewish theology. They embraced univ. messianism, substituted the dogma of god dictating the Tora at Sinai with "Fortschreitender Offenbarung", and stressed only the ethical and moral aspects of Judaism, stating the ritual commandments had no value of their own. Again too complex to dwell, but suffice that these again are all Reform ideas, and are not accepted by other non-Orthodox denominations. Against Geiger stood also Zacharias Frankel, founder of the "Positive-Historical School" (later known as Conservative in the U.S.). Frankel never formulated a clear theology (or even spoke his mind as to what he believed), and neither did his followers to this very day. He stressed the Volksgeist of Jews and the need to retain old tradition. He was largely considered Orthodox until 1859 when he published a heretical book, while the large steps of Reform took place in three conventions in 1844-6 which he condemned. Following these three, several radical activists in Berlin regarded the leadership as too soft and formed an independent community apart from the city's other Jews. It was called the Reformgemeinde and headed by Samuel Holdheim, Geiger's most radical supporter; the term "Reform" in Germany was reserved only for it. Most Geigerists, however, were keen on promoting their cause while serving in the unified congregations (Einheitsgemeinde (Judentum)) where they had to indulge both Orthodox - who for the most part did not secede into the Israelitische Religionsgesellschaft - and positive-historical. The moderate Geigerists were known as "Liberals", a vague term in 19th Century Germany which denoted at times also the positive-historical and the large, religiously apathetic majority of Jews in general. The Einheitsgemeinde forced everyone into a modus vivendi. While in the community level differences had to be resolved moderately, the theoretical chasms were clear-cut in the rabbinical institutions which adhered to each of the three demominations - the Orthodox Esriel Hildesheimer seminary in Berlin, the positive-historical Jüdisch-Theologisches Seminar in Breslau and the Liberal Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums. The Liberals gained the upper hand on the Pos.-His. in the long run, with many Breslau graduated accepting their position, and virtually all non-Orthodox joined the Vereinigung Liberaler Rabbiner (formed 1912) that while quite conservative stressed Geigerian ideas. I know it's all complex, but basically: Liberal in Germany = Geigerist. Today it's definitely so, and Walter Homolka writes in all of his books that there exists "Liberales Judentum" (fort. Offenbarung etc.), Pos-His/Conservative and Orthodox as the main big three groups.

A little note on the Pos.-His.: while they were not very strong in Germany, they had much influence in Austria-Hungary. In Austria itself the Einheitsgemeinden persisted and attempted to suit all tastes by often hiring Frankelist rabbis, who were very conservative. In Hungary, the Orthodox received permission to fully secede on the national level in 1871. The non-Orthodox, called Neologs in Hungary, were dominated by Frankelists. The Rabbinerseminar (Budapest) is pos-his to boot even today.

Other Geigerists, like David Eihorn (Rabbiner) and Samuel Hirsch, traveled to the USA after 1848. There was full freedom of religion and no Einheitsgemeinden there, and they were free to radically implement their vision. They created American Reform Judaism, which resembled Holdheim's community in its discarding of virtually all ritual observance. That's the American variant; it changed a lot, but it's all one organization - the Union of Hebrew American Communities, founded 1873, renamed Union for Reform Judaism in 2003. And it still largely adheres to "Geigerian" concepts, with all later innovations by other thinkers. A Positive-Historical rabbi from Hungary, Alexander Kohut, arrived in the US in 1885 and arragned the anti-Reform coalition. He founded the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York and called what he preaced Conservative Judaism, a term he coined in 1887.

In Britain, Liberal immigrants from Germany founded communities they called Reform (for no special reason) since the 1870s. That's UK Reform Judaism, which keeps the rather moderate way these people knew from their old Einheitsgemeinden. It had very few members and no real leadership until refugees from Germany, headed by Liberal rabbis who graduated at the Hochschule, arrived in 1933 and onwards by the thousands. British Liberal Judaism was founded in 1902 by Claude Montefiore, who graduated in the Hochschule too and was a Geigerian theologian (Michael Meyer describes his philosophy as not very much developed from Geiger's ideas). He was a "puritan" though, and his small community (made of native British Jews) resembled the American radical Reform, not the moderate German Liberal variant. However, both are "Geigerist" and share a single rabbinical institute, Leo Baeck College, founded in 1956. It's largely a copy of the Berlin Hochschule.

In 1926, the American Reform, The German Liberals and the British Liberals (British Reform, which was then weak and leaderless, joined shortly after) met in Berlin and founded the World Union for Progressive Judaism, the international body. As one scholar wrote, "they all adhered to progressive revelation etc. etc." - that is, to Geiger's ideology. They chose the name Progressive as an umbrella term. Apart from them, there were observers from across the world who were interested in this theology. Shortly after the Union started promoting Reform/Liberal/Progressive Judaism around the world, and its first operation was to set up a congregation in the Netherlands known there as Liberal. In Israel, German and American immigrants subscribing to the WUPJ founded what they call Progressive/Reform, depends on the ocassion. etc. etc., you get the big picture. Generally, "Geigerists" with all their differences - more or less conservative and so on - are known as Liberals in Europe, Reform in America and Israel and Progressive at both. The latter name stopped being identified solely with the "Geigerian" theology when the Rekonstruktionismus in America joined the WUPJ in the 1980s. They have a totally different philosophy - while Reform believes in "fort. Offenbarung" of some sort, they don't believe in Offenbarung period. In addition, they do lay stress on observance, yada yada, and they came into being only in the 1930s, splitting gradually from American Conservative Judaism, where their founder Mordechai M. Kaplan served in Jewish Theological Seminary.

And as for Conservatives, they founded their own international umbrella organization, "Masorti Olami" (Global Traditionalist). They love the word "Masorti", which is especially useful in Israel - where 99% of religious Jews are Orthodox, but about 30% of the Jewish population are lax (like Catholics who eat meat at Lent and go to confession once a bajillion years); those are also called "Masorti" there. It's an important social category. The few Conservatives in Israel alsocall themselves "Masorti" as a means to look less "heretical". This often irritates the local Orthodox who insist on the 'official' name. All Conservatives around the world are affiliated with Masorti Olami, except the Hungarian Neologs, who are considered a "sister movement" and share the same philosophy but are not members.19:05, 19. Sep. 2014 (CEST)

Thank you again for your detailed information. Please give me some time, before I come back to you with my questions and feedback.--Einar Moses Wohltun (Diskussion) 08:18, 6. Okt. 2014 (CEST)

Teile deine Erfahrungen und gib uns Feedback in dieser globalen Umfrage

Hallo! Die Wikimedia Foundation braucht dein Feedback in einer Umfrage. Wir möchten wissen, wie gut wir dich in deiner Arbeit für unsere Projekte online und offline unterstützen. Was können wir tun, um diese Unterstützung zukünftig zu verändern oder zu verbessern? Deine Beurteilung wird direkten Einfluss auf die aktuelle und zukünftige Arbeit der Wikimedia Foundation haben. Du bist zufällig ausgewählt worden an dieser Umfrage teilzunehmen und wir freuen und darauf, etwas aus deiner Wikimedia-Community zu hören. Als Dankeschön geben wir 20 Wikimedia-T-Shirts an zufällig ausgewählte Teilnehmer an der Umfrage. Die Umfrage ist in unterschiedlichen Sprachen verfügbar und nimmt 20 und 40 Minuten deiner Zeit in Anspruch.

Nimm an der Umfrage jetzt teil!

Mehr Information zur Umfrage gibt es hier. Die Umfrage wird von einem externen Anbieter betrieben, es gelten diese Datenschutzbestimmungen. Besuche unsere FAQ-Seite um mehr Informationen zu dieser Umfrage zu erhalten.. Wenn du zusätzliche Hilfe benötigst oder wenn du an zukünftigen Kommunikationen über diese Umfrage nicht teilnehmen möchtest, sende uns eine e-Mail an surveys@wikimedia.org..

Danke! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ihre Rückmeldung ist wichtig: endgültige Erinnerung an die globale Wikimedia-Umfrage

Hallo! Dies ist eine endgültige Erinnerung, dass die Wikimedia Foundation Umfrage am 28. Februar 2017 (23:59 UTC) schließen wird. Die Umfrage ist in unterschiedlichen Sprachen verfügbar und nimmt 20 und 40 Minuten deiner Zeit in Anspruch. Nimm an der Umfrage jetzt teil.

Wenn du schon die Umfrage gemacht hast: danke! Wir werden dich nicht wieder stören.

Über diesem Umfrage: Mehr Information zur Umfrage gibt es hier, oder Sie können die häufig gestellte Fragen lesen. Die Umfrage wird von einem externen Anbieter betrieben, es gelten diese Datenschutzbestimmungen. Wenn du zusätzliche Hilfe benötigst oder wenn du an zukünftigen Kommunikationen über diese Umfrage nicht teilnehmen möchtest, sende uns eine e-Mail an User:EGalvez (WMF) by dem EmailUser-Funcktion. Über die Wikimedia Foundation: Die Wikimedia Foundation unterstützt Sie bei der Arbeit an Software und Technik, um die Seiten schnell, sicher und zugänglich zu machen, sowie die Wikimedia-Programme und Initiativen, um den Zugang zu erweitern und kostenloses Wissen weltweit zu unterstützen. Danke! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:16, 24. Feb. 2017 (CET)

Computer Vision

So geht das nicht. Kopieren statt Verschieben (mit Diskussion und Versionsgeschichte) ist unzulässig. Bereite deinen Text in deinem BNR vor. --Bahnmoeller (Diskussion) 16:17, 2. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

Danke für den Hinweis. Verschiebewunsch wurde eingereicht.--Einar Moses Wohltun (Diskussion) 16:30, 2. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

O.K., dann war ich wohl der Verursacher (mit dem Kopieren). Das Problem war, dass der Artikel ursprünglich unterhalb der Disskusionsseite angelegt wurde. Darum hab ich den nochmal bei mir angelegt. Naja - egal!

Ich wollte eigentlich nur mal Bescheid geben, dass ich den Artikel "Maschinelles Sehen" dahingehend überarbeitet habe, dass der Unterschied zu Computer Vision dargestellt wird (s. 2. Absatz). Meine Frage an Dich: meinst du das reicht so? OlafTheScientist (Diskussion) 21:06, 15. Jun. 2020 (CEST)

Danke für die Info.

Also wegen des Kopierens statt Verschiebens trifft dich keine Schuld, da du ja nicht offizielle Artikel angerührt hattest. Das war tatsächlich meine Schuld, denn ich hatte versucht, den alten Artikel zu Computer Vision per Copy-and-Paste auf eine von mir neu angelegte Begriffsklärungsseite für Computer Vision verlagert, ohne die Versionsgeschichte und Diskussion zu berücksichtigen.

Kannst du die Info über den neuen Abschnitt bitte unter der Redundanzdiskussion zu Computer Vision/Maschinelles Schreiben posten?--Einar Moses Wohltun (Diskussion) 10:31, 18. Jun. 2020 (CEST)