User talk:Dstrob

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Dstrob, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your message at Requests for feedback[edit]

 Hello Dstrob. Replies have been posted to your message at Requests for feedback. Please acknowledge the feedback and ask for additional assistance if you need it. If you do not respond to the feedback, your message and the replies thereto will be archived in a few days. Thank you! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can remove this notice at any time - click on this section's [edit] link and remove the section.


List of people from Jersey City, New Jersey[edit]

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edits to List of people from Jersey City, New Jersey, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edits had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished synthesis of previously published material. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Anne Delong (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Joseph Stroebele[edit]

Dear David:

As a genealogist myself, I understand the amount of work that goes into finding and recording information about one's ancestors. However, Wikipedia is not a repository for genealogies. To be the subject of an article in the encyclopedia, a person must have obtained a certain amount of notability. In Wikipedia terms, notability means that he or she has been written about fairly extensively by authors or journalists who are not connected - that is, not relatives or employees or close friends of the subject. To be written about, the person usually has to have been involved in activities (good or bad) that bring them to the attention of these independent writers. "Notability" in this sense can't be inherited. You have offered as sources of information a book that you have written yourself, and a lecture in which you were involved. These don't pass the test of independence. However, you must have had sources for the information in your book and maybe you can add some of these. Genealogical sources such as census data, marriage records, etc., can be used to back up details in the article, but you may have trouble finding authors who have written about this man, since his life seems to have been fairly ordinary for the times in which he lived, working at a trade, emigrating, raising children, etc.

Please try to find some independent sources in news reports or books so that the article will not be deleted. Also, make sure that you have a copy of your text, because, unlike the Articles for Creation process which I see that you have tried before, when articles are found not acceptable in the main encyclopedia they aren't just declined, but actually removed.

I hope that this isn't too discouraging. I haven't tried to enter any of my own relatives, who seem to be mainly carpenters and sailors. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Engelbertha Stroebele for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Engelbertha Stroebele is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. I have included in this nomination the related article John Joseph Stroebele.

The articles will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engelbertha Stroebele until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the articles during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notices from the top of the articles. JohnCD (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we nominate the wikipedia page for big foot also for deletion? UFO's? This, I believe is a witch hunt due to the story in Germany's der Spiegel yesterday. I cannot prove that Friedrich was born in any other year except 1854 so I left it as is. Photographic evidence in a photo dated 1868/69 titled, "Krupp family with friends," cited in the book on my Engelbertha Krupp wikipedia page clearly shows a taller Engelbertha Krupp than her brother, Friedrich. This leads us naturally to believe she is older. Photographic expert Maureen Taylor pointed this fact out also. Note I said, "expert." Anger at my announcement on August 2, 2013 of an unrecorded banishment from the Krupp dynasty alone is motivating User John CD and nothing else. Why has he not attacked the big foot, UFO and related wikipedia pages? If the Engelbertha Krupp wikipedia page is deleted so must all these wiki articles. Selective enforcement is not the way to go, or oppressing one's freedom of expression. My Engelbertha krupp page is not my book, nor can wikipedia approve my book blasted on a wikipedia page. It's way too large. The wikipedia page entices the reader to read additional information in my book. That's what my book is there for. This whole thing is so ridiculous, but may turn out to bring publicity for my great-grandmother's cause in the end.
Dstrob (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have not read the Spiegel story until today. You have an interesting theory, but it is not material for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not here to entice readers to read your book. Your article is nominated for deletion because of two fundamental Wikipedia policies:
"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery," and
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia page titled, Engelbertha Stroebele." Please restore the original article I created with the original title I named it (Engelbertha Krupp) and delete the Engelbertha Krupp article. User CDJohn did this knowing the deleted reference would forever remain on Google and other search engines displayed as "Engelbertha Stroebele." His actions are immature and spiteful. I will go all the way to Wikipedia corporate headquarters to contest this if I need to, and you know I have the will.

Dstrob (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krupp family with friends 1868/69

That in Dstrob's eyes the woman on the far left of the 1868/69 photo looks taller than Friedrich Albert Krupp (in white trousers) does not make her his older sister. Nor is it of any importance that she does not look like singer Clara Tuczek (1854-1919), who would become Clara Bruch only on 3 January 1881 by marrying composer Max Bruch. The woman identified as Clara Bruch by the editor of the book wherein Dstrob found the photo was born in 1844 as the youngest daughter of Bertha Krupp's sister Matilde Bruch nee Eichhoff (1811-1878) and husband Wilhelm Bruch (1812-1877), gw.geneanet.org.

Tauf-Register Sigmaringen 1851

Since 2008 David Stroebel, Executive Director at Engelbertha Krupp Charitable Foundation, Inc., has knowledge of the entry for his great-grandmother Engelbertha Arnold in the baptism register of the catholic church of Sigmaringen, germangenealogist.com # 30, naming the same parents Joseph Arnold and Barbara Biedermann as Engelbertha's death certificate of 1911, spiegel.de. But that does not hinder Dstrob from making Engelbertha - on the basis of nothing but family gossip and a misinterpreted photo - a banished and disinherited daughter of Alfred Krupp and bothering the local court of Essen as well as the federal court of constitution with claims for the Krupp fortune. Of course, it's not money he is after; he wants to restore Engelbertha's honour. By associating her with identity fraud? --Vsop.de (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: " The first photo [Krupp family with friends] was taken in Essen, Germany in 1868", David Stroebel writes on wordpress.com/2013/08/16. According to the book where David Stroebel took it from, the photo was taken "in Nice, 1868/69".

Another lie is that "the findings of Stroebel’s book, The Cannon King’s Daughter, was featured August 2, 2013, on page one of Germany’s second most respected newspaper, der Spiegel". The story appeared only on spiegel.de and never made it into the printed magazine, and much less its front page.

On facebook.com David Stroebel writes: "Another important discovery was a, “Dear best of Bertha’s” term of endearment Engelbertha’s father, Alfred, used for his wife, Bertha [...] It is revealing in the sense that it is plural and implies there is more than one Bertha living in the house and that one Bertha behaves well while the other does not." "Bertha's" however is no plural, only "Berthas" in The Letters of Alfred Krupp is. But the original German edition has no plural but "Liebe beste Bertha!" equivalent to dearest Bertha.

How come that someone calling himself a historian is bending, distorting or misunderstanding almost everything? --Vsop.de (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Dear Dstroebel: I just saw your message about vandalism in my e-mail. Please next time just leave a message on my talk page at User talk:Anne Delong; I will be more likely to see it promptly.

I looked at the article that you mentioned, and I don't see any vandalism, only a serious disagreement about the facts. In a disagreement over facts, you will have to come up with a reference to a reliable source that proves your version. You can't use your own writings as a reference - that's what is meant by original research - but you can use the sources that you used when writing your information.

Vandalism happens when someone deliberately messes up the article, for instance, adding that Engelbertha was born in Australia, or making nasty or silly remarks about her in the middle of the article.

You have been doing the correct thing in discussing the disagreement on the talk page. I see that the argument has been heated at times, and people on both sides have not always remained civil. This is why it is not recommended for people to write articles where they have a conflict of interest - it's too easy to be emotionally involved and have an unpleasant experience.

Also, please remember that once the text has been included in Wikipedia, it is no longer yours, and others have as much right to change it as you do. However, they, too, should have a source if they add new information. A source is not needed to delete information that already doesn't have a source.

Sources for things that happened a long time ago are sometimes difficult to find. You may want to see if you can get some help finding them by leaving a message on the talk page at WP:Wikiproject Germany. You may also find someone there who can add to the debate in a calm and neutral manner.

It looks like the article has been nominated for deletion. Be sure to keep a copy of your text in case this happens, because you may want to make a new article later if you find more sources.

Sorry I can't be of more help, but I know nothing about the subject myself. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, and thanks for clarifying what original research was. Now I understand. So, it looks like I first must remove the reference to my book, right? Since all German military records were destroyed in allied bombings of Berlin, it is impossible to prove/disprove if one was in the military. I however have a newspaper article from the WWII-ers with a photo of my father and the caption below it, he states his grandfather, John Stroebele, was a Prussian Army officer. Can I use this to support that claim? As for the revelations that my great-grandmother was banished, etc, I have recorded telephone conversations with the person who communicated them. Can I use the transcripts of the telephone calls?

Thank you, David Stroebel 174.69.254.9 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David. If you have a newspaper clipping from a regular newspaper with editorial oversight, and you know the name of the newspaper and the date it was published, that would be a reliable source. However, whether it is good evidence depends on exactly what it says. I notice that one of the Wikipedia editors changed the article to say "In his book David Stroebel says..." or something like that, and that is how editors get around not having enough proof. For example, if the newspaper article says "Mr. Jones' grandfather was an army officer", that is good evidence, because reporters and editors are supposed to check facts, or at least not print something they think is unlikely to be true. On the other hand, if the reporter weasels out and says "Mr. Jones said that his grandfather was an army officer", well, that's absolutely true, because Mr. Jones did say that, but the information is not being backed up by the newspaper. That's one of the reasons that there are a lot of quotations in newspaper articles - it saves a lot of work checking on facts, but it makes a weaker source for an encyclopedia article.

Transcripts of telephone calls are another form of original research, unfortunately, since they are unpublished, second or third hand information. Here's an example from my own family: my grandfather told me that his grandfather was raised in the gatehouse of Caernarvon castle, had two extra thumbs which were surgically removed when an anonymous benefactor, maybe his unknown father, bought him a midshipman's birth in the Royal Navy. The truth: he was born in Portsmouth, both parents were known, he never that I have been able to find went near Caernarvon, wasn't Welsh although his wife was, was a sailor but not in the navy, and lived in Cardiff (thumbs don't get into records much).

I'm sorry that your experience with Wikipedia has been so stressful. There certainly are a variety of personalities to be encountered, and you picked a tricky to prove topic for your first article. Don't give up! Since you have written a book about your family, I don't suppose that I need to point out the variety of places to look military information, old German newspapers, familysearch.org, ancestry.ca, Cyndi's List, Genforum, etc. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bertha Eichhoff Krupp concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bertha Eichhoff Krupp, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Otto "Dave" Stroebel concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Otto "Dave" Stroebel, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bertha Eichhoff Krupp[edit]

Hello Dstrob. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Bertha Eichhoff Krupp".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bertha Eichhoff Krupp}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Otto "Dave" Stroebel[edit]

Hello Dstrob. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Otto "Dave" Stroebel".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Otto "Dave" Stroebel}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dstrob&oldid=942236974"