User talk:Mewa767

Alissa Jung
Hi, would you like to help me in construction of this article, please? My English is so poor. Thanks. Voxfax (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@User:Voxfax – English is not my native language. I am a wrong man for this job. Mewa767 (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You w:zh:LTA:QCHM
--千村美子 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. --Mewa767 (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to understand it. This is a long-term abuser. Remove or ignore this thread as you like.--Tiger (Talk) 04:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse
Hello; I've reverted your move of the above article. We use English on en.wiki, and this ship is almost categorically referred to without the eszett in English-language sources. Parsecboy (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is not logical. "SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Große" is a name and names are basically the same in all languages that use the Latin alphabet. The letter ß exists only in German, but in all languages you write "SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Große", just like in German. Should there be other rules for English? That's just sloppiness! --Mewa767 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet there are different rules for English, regardless of whether you think they're logical or not. Go pick up literally any book in English that discusses this (or any other German warship whose name includes an eszett) and you will see that the eszett is not used. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that, but books are not authoritative in this case, because they often date back to the time when it was almost impossible to use ß. In Wikipedia there is no such restriction and therefore it would be appropriate to use the letter in the English Wikipedia articles, as you do in other languages. A technical limitation from the analogue book age should not be transferred to the digital Wikipedia. Digital technology allows us to progress, but sticking to analog habits negates this possibility. Think about your posture more carefully. It doesn't hurt to use ß where it belongs. Readers get used to it very quickly and no false impression is given that the name is written differently than in reality. Regards --Mewa767 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Books are authoritative in the sense that they give a good indicator of what common English usage is. This is spelled out in the policy page I linked: "The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources" (emphasis mine). Further, readers who come to this article are likely to be at least somewhat familiar with the extant literature in English, so the principle of not surprising them comes into play. In any event, most of these books have been published in the last 20 years, so your argument about technical limitations is invalid. Authors writing in English have made the conscious decision to avoid the eszett, and as we follow English usage, we should make the same decision. This is really all there is to it. If you think this policy is flawed, you need to get WP:UE changed, not try to make an exception out of a single article.
 * On whether it hurts to use the eszett; you should consider that the vast majority of en.wiki readers are not German speakers, and thus would have no idea what the eszett represents. They might read it as a B or β; we should not be going out of our way to introduce confusion or make things harder to understand. On the contrary, we should write articles with an eye toward accessibility. It's the same reason we avoid jargon.
 * As an aside, something you are probably not aware of: the Imperial Navy painted the names of its ships in capitals, and as the capital eszett did not exist, if you looked at the ships themselves, their names were rendered as "GROSSE", "WEISSENBURG", etc. Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)