User talk:Polentarion/Archive 1

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Serten. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Serten~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Keegan Peterzell, I would like to have an Account for all wikis. Would it be possible to use another name, lets say Sertenario for all wikis and transfer the creidts to it?. I wrote an request to the steward under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalRenameRequest/status. Regards Serten II (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ji. Sounds like Serten works again as global account. insofar I ask to merge it with serten II. Serten 18:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)



Welcome!
Hello, Serten, 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: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Nice to find a quirky DYK possibility, thank you for Men's parking space. Please concentrate a bit, and I will nominate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I feel Honored. Triberg sent me some more photos, I dowloaded them on commons but need the OTRS to comply

NR Serten.


 * Ask PumpkinSky, he is an admin on the commons and can handle that, photographer of the Yogo sapphire, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Serten (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't take that photo, Montanabw did. I did take the photos of the pear shaped yogo and the purple yogo though. Being an admin on Commons doesn't mean you have OTRS access, but I do happen to have both accesses. See my talk page too. Pumpkin Sky  talk  10:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Männergarten
Hello! Your submission of Männergarten at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Manxruler (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Muggeseggele
Hi, regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Muggeseggele... DYK rules require a new article to be at least 1500 prose characters, and yours is only 978 990 (I added a convert, which added a few characters). It will have to be expanded to be eligible for DYK. For a tool to count prose characters, see WP:DYKcheck. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  19:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two other issues also. SL93 (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Men's parking space
Hello! Your submission of Men's parking space at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Men's parking space
Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats to your first DYK on the English Wikipedia! It will not reach the stats of Kafka, but I predict attention ;) - It is also featured on Portal:Germany. If you have more DYK related to Germany, please feel free to enter it there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool! Gerda you helped me a lot, thanks for all. Serten (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  first article

Thank you for your first article on the English Wikipedia, Men's parking space, that attracted more than 20,000 views one day and tells us something about bias - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"Blush" 06:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't, you made it to the All-time DYK page view leaders ;) - Look for "blush" on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A year ago, you were the 543rd recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seufz, hier habe ich mich noch etwas gerührt, als der Gore effect gelöscht werden sollte, in der de:WP schaue ich nicht mal mehr meine Nutzerseite an. Serten (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Three years ago, you were recipient no. 543 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565416430 your edit] to Garden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * * A Männergarten  portmanteau of Kindergarten and Männer (German for men) is a temporary day-care and

DYK nomination of Muggeseggele
Hello! Your submission of Muggeseggele at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have given it some brushing up. See what Drmies thinks now. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Muggeseggele
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cute ;) - I bet another stats entry, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-inserting errots part II
Made my day. Probably Hg6996 logged out, he has a certain level and thrives to fullfill English As She Is Spoke. Serten (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

List of scientists...
I commend you trying to get the list to something that is recognizably encyclopedic and appropriate for Wikipedia. I strongly suggest taking as much time as it takes to read the last AfD, and skim through the talk page discussions since. Without some perspective on the history of the article, editors' continuing concerns about it, and how the local consensus was achieved and is being maintained, I'm afraid that the response you're getting on the talk page is just going to escalate and be unproductive. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh. When Collonney came up, I had a break. "The Pause" helps. Maybe you dont believe me, but I had skimmed already through the various AfDs. Reading the statment "none of persons in question has actually stated anything like opposing that they oppose the consensus on AGW" included. One of my first points was that the principal argument for deletion was about BLP. However, I dont care wether nearly none of the scientists listed really "stated that they oppose the consensus on AGW", its much more important wether someone is able to find sources that claim those scientists are not within the connsensus. This list should be erased from Wikipedia since the exclusion from consensus of listed people is not at all mentioned in the secondary sources given. Therefore the inclusion of some or all of these scientists on this lists is original research first and a violation of WP:BLP second and third the list is to be erased sinc it does not define what a scientist is. Why is Varenholt a scientist and Richar Tol not? Serten (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you've read it, then you know my perspective. It should be deleted.
 * I'm hoping someone will come along with an approach to creating real, policy-based consensus. I think you have multiple, good concerns that might be fruitful. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

E CLAMPUS VITUS, usw
Gruaß di Schwoager ! I hab dei Talk:Ozone_depletion a bisl ogeshaut, dei Feind is gewiß ā Drek Preiß--Pfui Toife !

Wegn dei Artikel in Sandkasten über Haberfeldtreiben...soll des auf English übersetz sei ? I glaub mir sollten ā Haberfeldtreiben hier bei Wiki veranstalten, mir zwo als Haberfeldmaastern werden die Heiden gscheid heraustrieben ! Pfüat di Tjlynnjr (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Ja de Tjlynnjr-User kimmt hereini, alte Wursthaut, des gfreit mi. Es sott scho no übasetzt wern des Habafeldtreibn. I dat soagn, das es ähnliche Bräuch bai die Anglos gibt, die hoisn des a Charivari. Die Klimahoanzen datn schoa gnug Charivari moachn, i han zwonan Nordlichta übasetzt, den Grundmann Reiner und da Weingart Peta, die sich da auskennat, des reichat mir da scho. Wan mer helfen doast mit am Haberfeldern, des dat mer au zum Did you know bringem, das die Leit des schee seen kennet. Habe die Ehre. Serten (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Diese Energiewende ist schlimmer als ein Verbrechen, sie ist ein Fehler ;) Serten (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ozone depletion and climate change
Hi Serten, it took me a while and someone with a decent science education could have done better, but I have been through the article polishing up the English. I added a few notes in edit summaries, but in general:
 * I changed "eminent danger" to "imminent"; please check the Unger reference to see which he uses. "Imminent" is by far the more common adjective with "danger": it means there's a danger of it happening soon. "Eminent" is a term of respect meaning "important", applied to statesmen, for example - for the dangers of global warming it would probably be better to use a different adjective meaning "important" without those connotations, such as "significant danger" or "major danger".
 * You appear to have intended to use UK English, so I changed "meter" to "metre". Was that a correct assumption?
 * The references are in part out of date - a 2012 publication noted as in press, accessdates in 2010. I assume you are building on older work. If on older Wikipedia articles, these should be noted on the article talk page for attribution. In any event, it would be good to check for actual publication details, any URLs that have changed, etc., and to use the most recent accessdate.
 * Reference format in English vs. German: I changed this in a few places but the whole article could use a going over for this. Some references use citation templates. If you intend to use these, it's best that all references use them, because they output the references in a peculiar format and order of elements. But even if not using them, an English citation usually starts with the author(s), followed by the chapter/article title in quotation marks (not italics), then the book or journal title (in italics outside the sciences, where journal titles are often not italicised), and page numbers are at the end.
 * DYK hooks: I don't participate at DYK any longer or I would tweak this myself, but your alternate hook needs a little Englishing, as follows: "that studies about ozone depletion and global warming tell us about the importance to manage of managing ignorance and uncertainties for in political decision making?"

Hope that helps. I understood most of it but the scientific background section had me floundering. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The scientific background section is complete incoprehensible gibberish, copied (with a remark in the version history) from Ozone depletion#Ozone depletion and climate section. Its not planned to be useful but - imho - just dressed to impress. But I am glad you took a close eye on my text. Cheers Serten (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Die Rhöner Säuwäntzt
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Earthquakes in the Mediterranean region
Hi there. Thanks for adding the "Natural hazards" section to Mediterranean Sea article. Perhaps you would want to add some more recent earthquakes to that section such as these from 1999 as mentioned in Greek–Turkish earthquake diplomacy? Regards, Takeaway (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel warmly welcome, as my changes based on groves and radkaus work in tragedy of the commons have been dubbed as spam ;) I was catious to and sort of reluctant to introduce continental hazards, and therefore started with islands and coast - sea issues. But feel free to expand the sectio I started, its not my property ;) Do you agree that the Greek–Turkish earthquake diplomacy and espacially intra mediterrenian security conflicts and cooperation, e.g. about immigration deserve a separate section? Serten (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh... I had a look at the "Tragedy..." article and quickly clicked it away after reading the first sentence. Not really my thing and especially not after having had the amount of beer and wine I had tonight. Please feel free to implement my suggestion from here above. You're already in the swing of things so please go ahead. I'd have to get into the rhythm first and probably won't for the time being on that subject. As for your proposal to introduce a new section on security etc., I don't really think that a subject like that would be served by just one section in an overview article such as Mediterranean Sea. In my opinion, a separate article would do such a subject more justice as there is so much to write about, and then a short mention in the overview article. That way too, a lot of nationalistic editing reverts will be avoided on the Mediterranean Sea article.... LOL! - Takeaway (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I had another quick glance at the "Tragedy..." article difs and I noticed that you had completely rewritten the article. A "softer" approach would have been to add your research to the article as a "but Radkaus on the other hand states...". That way the present sourced information stays and your content is added as a supplement with a different view. But yes, write your piece first in your sandbox and ask the two editors who oppose you to comment on it before merging it into the present article. As an outsider who has no opinion on the whole matter, this would seem like the best strategy. Good luck! - Takeaway (talk) 23:49, 19 September

2014 (UTC)


 * Youre right, its sort of risky for any greenhorn to tell the old hands in an article what they done wrong in the past. However, Wikipedia entries may have a long history (the med article started with something like "big pond beteen africa and europe") but still may lacking major informations or may be plainly wrong at all. I mean ist sort of funny, that the usual suspects write large entries about the invasion of alien shells via the Suez or, climate change (yawn), but completely ignore real hazards and environmental issues that may actually cost thousands of human life and are recussing regularly. Tsunamis happen as well in the Med and they will be much more dangerous in the future, as the costlines are overpopulated. Serten (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible Images

 * No, especially the black and white pics had no appropriate categories at all. Thats to be introduced still. Serten (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know how to make commons categories? Hafspajen (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's say, I am able to get the basic pictures and able to use hotcat as well in Commons. But I have some bad experiences in the de WP with attempts for deeper reaching changes in the category trees. Serten (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Can imagine.... Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * completely failed to get a common categeory stereotype in deWP, they just didnt want to believe it was a a reasonable cat. That said, I dont edit there anymore, but I believe the enWP system is more flexible. Serten (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen - I think something like is more suitable for the article. Just be bold and edict directly into the draft, if you get something suitable, ist OK as well just to provide links as with Louis Maurer. Serten (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what YOU think it is suitable for it, so I am putting images on your talk to be possibly used. Hafspajen (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah point is, as long we dont clash in the article, you never know what I might suppose being usefull. I even promise to listen to you now and then. Anyway, I need more text than images in the meanwhile and you helped me a lot already. I think there is need for better categories, if you have any Idea I will tag what we have collected so far as well. Serten (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Only thing I can say is that I also was crazy about indians and read each and every Karl May I could find. But nowadays it is not easy to find the in libraries ... they removed them, the last time I asked. Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=628274159 your edit] to Literary society may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 47 the largest society is however the Literarische Gesellschaft/Scheffelbund Karlsruhe, founded 1891 (in Schwetzingen, now Karlsruhe) in honory of Joseph Victor von Scheffel with

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=628299035 your edit] to Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * but Norway, due to a No referendum.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=628692404 your edit] to Anti-Europeanism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * from European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS) 2004 /ref

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629079889 your edit] to Marc Morano may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Marc Morano' (born 1968 in Washington, D.C.) is a conservative American publisher. He has been working for different political assignements in

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629096565 your edit] to Christian emigration may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * world wide. The claims about Lebanon would apply as well to Ireland, which has no Muslims ; .  |date=October 2014}}

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629463503 your edit] to Olim le Berlin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 'the type who made Tel Aviv cool', young, single, non-religious and often female graduates, http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21623796-some-israelis-yearn-new-lives-germany-

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629537346 your edit] to Queen of Sheba may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * to Israel as in Operation Joshua (named as well "Operation Sheba) or Operation Solomon [http://www.intelligence.org.il/ShowItem.aspx?ItemID=4ddc5a52-e59d-4c80-bda8-2ea14c38f5c0&amp;

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629920702 your edit] to Olim le Berlin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * aliyah]], a basic tenet of Zionism. The conflict itself is called battle of the ecliptic  in Israel, a pun refering to the quite successfull first commercial

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=630934332 your edit] to Schwabenhass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * century, Swabish neighbors were a reason to start leaving certain neigborhoods in Berlin. http://www.wolfgang-brauer.de/publiziert/berliner_notizen/detail/zurueck/willkommen-2/artikel/

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631883669 your edit] to Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The democratic deficit in the European Union , including legitimacy problems of the European Commission and the European Parliament is

Muddy


Thanks for helping, but don't get yourself in revert-trouble, - it's not worth it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, one of the reasons I refrain from editing the infobox meta sphere was me I burning my fingers with the high and mighty in deWP. The German discussions about the use of star for "born" (Venus! Mary! Pagan! Christian!) and Dagger/Cross for Death (Crucifix! Christian! German!) biographical articles lede are rather muddy. Form der Lebensdaten in der Einleitung von Personenartikeln. I then had used sign language as an argument - [http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-signs/g/germany.htm The sign for Germany is either an eagle or a Pickelhaube, Israeli deaf started with a swastika (sic!), either refering to the importance of stereotypes as base for Visual Literacy ;) However some of the points which succeeded in keeping Cross and Dagger are applicable as well to the infobox case.


 * Quote" Für die genealogischen Zeichen sprechen deren intuitive Erkennbarkeit, kultur- und sprachübergreifende Zugänglichkeit und technologische Entwicklungen (vgl. de:Canvas (HTML-Element)), die Grafik und Text weiter zusammenführen. Sie verbessern Leseführung und Verständlichkeit im Sinne der Visual literacy auch für an Schriftzeichensprachen geschulte Leser und vermindern Verwechslungen mit anderen Zeitangaben. In Brailleschrift (als + oder *) sind sie einfach darzustellen."

Thats said, the stricter infoboxes require a certain row and order and the more they use good symbols, they better they become. But it takes a long and hard way to find the right ones. WP is not the right place for that, better refer to DIN, IEC or other standards, DIN 5008 in case of the cross. Feel free to use that for your discussions. Serten (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If I learned on thing on WP it's patience ;) - I try to stick to 2 comments per discussion and 1 revert. So many topics are missing, - fighting takes too much time. - Look at Rigoletto, now archived: after endless discussions we found out that one of the opponents of an infobox thought it has to represent the article. A simple misunderstanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ahmed Taymour
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Hobby horse polo
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

List... Arbom
I suggest getting clarification and action on the existing arbitration decisions, especially on William M. Connolley's topic ban. You're being treated like dirt by the editors, though they do have a point when they say that they're having a difficult time understanding some of the language you use and the concerns that you have. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Stephan Schulz point about my use of "post-modernist claims about science" is not as bad as it seems, social scientists get more and more involved in climate issues, a traditional keep of self announced "hard scientists". I have a backgound bridging that gap, have to try to improve understandability from my side but ask others to accept humanities / social science as science. Here I do so by inviting others to have a look on my articles. Serten (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that you were backing some of your arguments with your own work. I don't think you'll get anywhere with that line of reasoning. --Ronz (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I dont get your point probably. I am not using my own work, be it in science or as a publisher. I was accused of not being able to write proper English or to come to a consensus, therefore I mentioned some articles I have written, where that was not an issue. I am an experienced (de)WP editor, but have no experience at all with enWP arbitration etc mechanims. The learning curve is steep at the moment ;) Serten (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I don't understand yours.
 * Given the recent discussions on notability and inclusion criteria, I started this discussion on what policies/guidelines apply and how. I hope this helps. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User talk:Ronz, lets do it like this, I explain my point here, if you're ok with the wording, lets copy it to the discussion, if not, lets reword it. Feel free to do changes yourself. OK? 23:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * draft (free to edit)
 * WP:NLIST contains the following notion Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group. Compare a list of bird species. We need sources for each species, that confirm "this is a bird", its not at all allowed to put up rules (can fly, has wings, lays eggs) und start to debate wether to include Pterosaur or not. But that is the case with the sceptics list. We have OR based inclusion criteria, hand picked from outdated reports which are being used to measure the degree of scepticism. Far from proper sourcing. That said, the list currently is not at all noteable. Instead we need sources that state explicitely, that scientist XY is not within the mainstream.
 * You havent mentioned WP:COP so far. Rather important. "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." However the list is being used as base of a category (climate sceptics) involving 87 people, which are not mentioned within the list and a large part of them would never ever be allowed to bmentioned on the list. Take e.g. Inhofe, O'Reilly, Morano. To categorize them with reference to the article is against WP:COP and against WP:Bio.
 * With regard to "no propaganda", the list currently doesn't include scientists, that are more alarmist than the IPCC mainstream. That said, it doesnt aim to fullfill its own criteria (mainstream has, as any river, two shores) but is a onesided, partisan exclusion tool against sceptics. Serten (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * comments on draft

First version done. Serten (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * NLIST- Editors believe that the statements by the scientists meet the criteria that each entry has a reliable source. The problem isn't that no sources exist, but that they require detailed analysis from editors to determine whether or not the entry is indeed a member of the group. Yes, this is a problem. However, I don't see any wording in any policy or guideline addressing how to resolve this problem.
 * COP applies to categories, not lists.
 * SOAP ("no propaganda") - I don't understand. My point is that I think the only way we can find consensus that SOAP is not being violated is to clearly meet notability requirements, including having inclusion criteria that is not biased.
 * In general, I'm trying to get editors to specifically identify which notability criteria apply. It appears that current consensus (or lack thereof) rests on the article being a navigational list, and that by declaring it as such, SOAP and most of NLIST can be safely ignored, especially the notability of the group.
 * I think that for any progress to be made (improvement of the article or its deletion) rests on getting agreement on which policies and guidelines apply first, then discussing how they apply, then finding consensus on the notability and inclusion criteria based upon those discussions and the sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * requiring detailed analysis from editors instead of using external sources is the most blatant violation of "No original research" you might imagine.
 * IMho WP:COP applies, as the article is being used to justify categorization of non scientists but excludes them in the artcile itself. Again Original research of the worst kind.
 * a WP navigational list is not applicable for the main Wikipedia:Namespace. Serten (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the analysis rather than reliance is an OR problem. Many others do as well.
 * Concerning WP:COP: WP:LISTPEOPLE states that WP:BLPCAT applies, which references WP:COP. So the stronger arguments would rest on BLPCAT, with mention of WP:COP, especially Categorization_of_people.
 * Navigational lists are specifically allowed per WP:LISTN and WP:LISTPURP, but I think the article violates most of the policies in favor of LISTPURP, and editors repeatedly assume that it is fine to do so. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Youre much better in dealing with the right enWP:policies, but we agree on the basic issue now. Use it, I will contribute if needed.
 * Compare the whole "destillation" business is moonshine, original research. You better look for external sources that claim that a scientist is not within the IPCC range or is being deemed a (climate) sceptic. Thats simple and along rules.
 * I tagged in parallel [] - it probably doesnt stand any notablility check.
 * I did some work on User:Serten/IPCC consensus, feel free to contribute. Serten (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

AfD
Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_20 ;)Serten (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK Dominik Kuhn
Hello! Your submission of Dominik Kuhn at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

DYK for Dominik Kuhn
The DYK project (nominate) 14:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Olim le Berlin
Hello! Your submission of Olim le Berlin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see new note on DYK nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Schwabenhass
 * added links pointing to Dpa and Swabian


 * Dominik Kuhn
 * added a link pointing to ARD

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Fog Warning
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Serten: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  Hafspajen (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Regrading your tags
Please exactly mention why you think that the article 2014 Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's speech at UN is not neutral. Act similarly for other tags. Then we know what our discussion topic will be! Mhhossein (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, the article is a case for AFD. Serten (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly why? Mhhossein (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Mathew 13,9. The Kirchner speech has some funny aspects (uninteneded) but has much less coverage in the press as Wastl / TM 'you looking nice'. Point is, we don't make separate articles for each White House Rose Garden announcement, do we?, and WP is not a Pallywood outlet. Serten (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We're not going to make a separate article for each lecture and this case is not, of course, a White House Rose Garden announcement as the news outlets say. By the way, lets assume that her lecture was very funny! OK! Is it a motivation for not having such an article? Despite 99.999 percent of the scientists believe that the earth is not flat, we see Flat Earth article in WP. By the way, Is it really flat? Mhhossein (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I was way surprised how willingly Kirchner is making an idiot out of herself. Its great if "Authentic sources—many authentic sources" has another job, but how did he make it to Argentine? Serten (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to make personal attacks here (we should not insult her or any other person). This is not what the editors are supposed to do! Your surprise changes nothing. In fact, our opinion about the subject is not important here. So, you really only believe what BBC, CNN, FOX News and etc publish? Mhhossein (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It may be posible to write an article without fringe sources, yes, and Kirchner's twitter account and major parts of her speech herself are neither confirmable nor reliable. Serten (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The twitter comment is according to Telam. By the way, Nearly all the parts of her speech are from UN News Center, Is it really unreliable? Mhhossein (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I had the impression the section allegedly based on the UN news center was longer than the UN news center. Serten (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 11:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mariam al-Mansouri
Hello! Your submission of Mariam al-Mansouri at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Piganino
Hello! Your submission of Piganino at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited How (greeting), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Manitu and Wyandot. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Mariam al-Mansouri
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prussian education system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McCloy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Olim le Berlin
Hello! Your submission of Olim le Berlin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Serten, it's been ten days since the above was posted. Please stop by the nomination as soon as possible. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Do I have to care? Those guys didnt provide a DYK regular review at all. Serten II (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

.
Have you seen this Serten and   - now just read  Romantic movement - and you will understand why all this was so wrong.


 * I did meant that those changes were wrong - because they were wrong. That painting is a Romantic painting -no doubt about that - that's for sure.for sure.


 * See how the lead describe Romantic movement. The painter was part of the American Romantic art school, the Hudson River School, and  that is a Romantic art movement.


 * And the DKY guy goes and replaces fully valid sentence: Emotions like awe – especially that which is experienced in confronting the sublimity of untamed nature and its picturesque qualities – were new aesthetic categories, and very different from Realism and Classicism as a source of aesthetic experience with a weird new version of his own: Church was able to envisage the American natural environment as manifestly divine, considered representative of the importance of religion in american culture.


 * Whatever religion in American culture?? Nobody ever talked about religion here. Nobody ever said that the American nature was a manifestation of the DIVINE and the American religion. No, it is about the natures forces and emotions, that 's what it is about. That sentence  is just    wrong, it has nothing to do with the picture.


 * Than goes the other guy telling me that  it was removed because it wasn't directly relevant to the subject.  It has just EVERYTHING  to do with the subject, indeed. Hafspajen (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Hafspajen and. It took me a while to answer, honestly I was already rather annoyed as well. I cannot login with my original account. Point is, that there is not ONE religion in American culture. Fuebjaer talking about "the church" "the church" is completely nonsense. One might assume btw, I am quite sure, that manifest destiny has been part of the wilderness discourse, that the American nature was taken as a part of the American religion. But I think the conflict with the "DYK guy" is one between Hafspajen high level prose and his (Fuebjaers) lack of understanding :( Serten II (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Who's luck of understanding. Hafspajen (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, the DYK person ;) I did some clarifications ;) Serten II (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7drYkVRV39YProbably I am talking to fast... ] Hafspajen (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kisses to for her polishing the prussian education system., first Major-General Potter will be able to cast an oblivio spell on you ;) Better have a look on Talk:Bayume_Mohamed_Husen - a fascinating bio of a Black German ladies guy's article I just edited ;) Serten II (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

New climate change skeptics categories
Hi Serten, FYI, Category:Climate change skeptics has now been nicely split into two new sub-categories: Category:Climate change skeptics (politicians), and what should be your favourite: Category:Climate change skeptics (scientists); this latter dovetailing nicely with List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I hope you agree that this is a nice result, and that it's better that no one deleted the original category. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Prhartcom, at least someone dared to decide! I seriously doubt the dovetailing aspect and raise that on the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
 * 1) You asked for the cat being defined and sourced properly. The list doesnt work like this. It does NOT use third party sources "claiming XYZ is a sceptic". In so far your statement Quote Of course the only people currently are, and will be, in this category are people who are on record according to reliable sources as someone who is a climate change skeptic would be a major change of policy for the list.
 * 2) With regard to the split cat itself - as long as the cat is based on a list of scientists, it insofar applies only to scientists. It has nothing to do with political persons. IT MAY NOT BE USED to categorize politicians.
 * 3) I doubt the application of "sciencist". I (as a german) call a scientist someone who professionally works or has worked in science, that would do for a researcher working in a think tank, reasearch institution or university. So Evans (Think tank manager), Varenholt or Allegere are no scientists, McIntyre as freelance mining statist expert for hire is fringe case, I would include him within scientists. Serten II (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't have to "seriously doubt" the dovetailing aspect. You can take my word that I did the work to make sure this is the case, or you can do some work and check it for yourself. Other than a slight problem with some editor's misguided opinion that scientists must be alive to be on the List and have reverted my additions to it, these scientists are in this "(scientists)" category, and those that are in this category are in this List.


 * You appear to be confused about Wikipedia:RS policy. The cat being is defined and sourced properly. Not sure why you are against the idea of reliable, secondary sources being required before being allowed to be categorised.


 * You appear to be confused about the category of "(scientists)" being used to categorize politicians. As I said, there is the separate "(politicians)" category for that.


 * It sounds like we agree with the definition of scientist. If there are individuals who are miscategorised, by all means do some work, get to the bottom of it, and recatagorise them. Skeptics who are neither scientists nor politians belong in the parent (prior to split) list.


 * I let you know about the result of my work because I appreciated the fact that you pointed out the problem in the first place. However, I do not respect your armchair approach of simply complaining and deleting. Do some creating. I also do not trust the fact that you have apparently created a second user name. If I have miscast you in any way, then I apologise. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Prhartcom, I have done some work and raised concerns about the article "list of scientists..." which is being used for the category. You can take my word that not a single one of the sources used for the lists actually describes one the scientists which are being listed as a "sceptic". It might be different with the sources in the article of the persons, but the list as such is NOT adequately sourced. In so far the list shoudlnt be used in the defintiont of the category. With regard to the second user name, its been explained one section above - and in my post on mediawiki - I wasnt able to login with the original account, even with the proper password I received an error message and therefore have created another user name. If you sent a mail, under either account, I am able to confirm the identity. Serten II (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll let it pass that you believe "doing work" is the same as "raising concerns" (consider how the entire Wikipedia project got to the point that it currently is). However, I'm honestly confused about two things you said and I suppose I'm curious enough to ask you to explain them to me: 1) Why shouldn't the list be used in the definition of the category? There is even a special template available be used on category pages to identify an article equivalent to that category. 2) What do you mean by saying the sources used for the list do not describe any of the scientists being listed as a sceptic? Of course they do; for example, I added a few names to the list and properly sourced my additions by placing references to reliable sources (that I found at the scientist's article) which quote or prove the scientist's scepticism. Prhartcom (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, its not about statements "which quote or prove the scientist's scepticism". Who decides about the valdity of the proof? WP doesnt work like that. If a scientist is going to be listed among a disputed category, as e.g. "defends child molesters", "creationist", "holocaust denier" or, as said, "climate sceptic", WWP does not allow private assessments on his statements ourselves. We ask for third party sources that allow for such a categorization. Full stop. Serten II (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Another user, Prhartcom, filed a sockpuppet complaint about Serten and Serten II here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really serious ;) Serten II (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Popular image of Native Americans in German speaking countries
Hello! Your submission of Popular image of Native Americans in German speaking countries at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Hume, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FAZ. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=637765603 your edit] to Religious education may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC) 

Happy Saint Lucia's day!

"Good Morning"Serten : Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia! 13 December is the day when Swedes perplex the rest of the world by showing up way too early in the morning dressed in white tunics, candles in their hair, singing and bringing saffron buns and breakfast in bed to nice people. Hope you have a bright day! Hafspajen (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Mess
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=637906208 your edit] to Waldensians may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * //www.waldenser.de/ Deutsche Waldenservereinigung e.&amp;nbsp;V.] German Waldensian association   Historical association "Waldenserort Nordhausen"

Reference Errors on 14 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the The Guardian page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=638091848 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F638091848%7CThe Guardian%5D%5D Ask for help])

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

At the Arbitration Enforcement page, you must only comment in your own section
Please refactor your comments at WP:AE so that you follow the procedures and comment only in your own section and not the comments of other users. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thnx for the hint, I will do so in the future. and correct the previous ones. Serten II (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome...
...to the Bacon Cabal, saw your note on talk page, was away for a while an (s)he archived before I could respond. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * kelapstick - Cool!  Two articles went on the list ;) Serten II (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

IPCC consensus
Don't want to make a big thing of it, but I think if you want to use the climate map, it should be big enough for people to actually see if it's worth clicking on. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're so inclined, drop me a line at pdtillmanATgmailDIESPAMMERcom for a pertinent off-wiki bit. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I sent you a mail via the WP trail, found it? Serten II (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC) PS.: Think the map looks better now. Serten II (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. Thanks. And have a look at User:Tillman/Favorite minerals. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We need a local cahpter of E Clampus Vitus at WP, right? Wow! I had lectures from a friend of Olaf Medenbach, sorta minneral photographer in Germany and a Lapis editor, compare. http://www.lapis.de/ but I never went into sampling ;)  Serten II (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool. Always wanted make the Munich show -- I lived i Tucson for may years, got spoiled by Tucson Gem & Mineral Show. OK, back on topic:


 * For the lede, I think it works better with the IPCC logo first. And I'd drop the captions on both, they're just clutter, imo. Deep enough, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sort of shy with pics without caption, but you better ask for forgiveness, not for allowance, just change it it. I digged on User:Tillman/Four_new_academic_review_articles_on_climategate - mentioning a guy called Reiner Grundmann - a burocrat on WP:commons stole his photo but the article is nice and shining :) Serten II (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * IPCC consensus
 * added links pointing to New Republic, Roger Pielke and Paul Edwards


 * Waldensians
 * added links pointing to Homburg and Perouse


 * Christmas traditions
 * added a link pointing to Loriot


 * History of climate change science
 * added a link pointing to Vienna Convention


 * Tinsel
 * added a link pointing to Loriot

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

IPCC
Since youa ppear to want independent comment on your article, but it is very obviously identified by credible editors as a WP:POVFORK and containing WP:OR, I have moved it back to your userspace at User:Serten II/IPCC consensus, to save the faff of an inevitable AfD. Please ask for input from the relevant wikiproject, they can I am sure help you to achieve the required standards of neutrality and leave it as something other than the current rather obviously opinionated monograph. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting approach ;) Guy, I moved the article to Drafts and ask for a review. Serten II (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC) WikiProject Climate is inactive, WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force has been asked, as well WikiProject Sociology and Portal:Philosophy of science been involved. Regards. Serten II (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The article needs work, but was making progress in article space. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by taking it out. The article will cause controversy no matter when its moved back. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Youre right, the article may cause controversy no matter when its moved back, but it already gained a lot of strength with third party involvement as yours, Pete Tillman. Point is, I won't go to the admin board with another claim against Guy but accept his decision to move the article back in userspace now. Its a sort of tragedy, that the climate change task force is a mere deeply entrenched partisan show reel, compare their sort of triumphant reaction on Talk:History_of_climate_change_science - they claim a consensus, its one of their big things, but they deny having it described properly and try to exclude the studies that do so. My point is to ask for external and internal scrutiny on the draft now, and may be I am not the only one to be surprized about the outcome. If you have some ideas about reviewers or provide comments yourself,, youre welcome. Serten II (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Meaning vs. thinking....
"What do you mean" is a false friend - it does not mean "Was ist Deine Meinung" but rather "Wie bitte?" (i.e. "Please explain the meaning", not "what is your opinion"). I think you want to say "What's your opinion?" or maybe "What do you think (about this)?" here.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Got that point on language ;). I had inserted studies of the use of the IPCC consensus as a rethorical means, a statement of authority. WMC did not erase them, but left that to others and uttered strong language at other pages. "False friendly" may be used as well figuratevely, right? Serten II (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Seten
I give me a puppy, please. I am heavily allergic on cats ... I don't really like them much anymore. Hafspajen (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, a Golem always is better than a cat. Hafspajen (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How aboput sound? Serten II (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing warning
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

Comment by NAEG - I have no problem with neutral messages posted to likely portals; for climate related articles I often post such notices also at Talk:Global warming, since there is so much traffic there. I also don't object to pinging past involved editors, but if you do that you should send the same message to all of them. In contrast, you appear to be cherry picking specific editors according to your predictions of their POV, trying to sway them with non-neutral messages, and without really considering if they are skilled at WP:Dispute resolution. For example Finally, it strikes me as rather brazen to be editing under our policy of NPOV, to acknowledge other eds' talking about AE enforcement against you (where you replied "The Spanish Inquisition was quicker"), give yet another editor commenting on your POV and non-consensus approach with "(paraphrased) in your face", and at the same time initiate such a campaign. Do you want a topic ban? I've got half a complaint drafted already, focusing on failure to assume good faith. If you want to spread the word about anything - fine. There is a handy table to help identify permissible canvassing versus the wrong kind and you can find it at WP:Canvassing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Serten recruiting an editor w/ 3 blocks in under 4 months
 * Serten painting climate page editors who disagree with Serten as "Zealots"
 * Serten saying his opponents are "deeply entrenched" explicitly recruits only "suitable editors"
 * I lost track of the diff about stealth canvassing, but I'll be glad to dig it up if an admin asks for it.


 * Canvassing is about excessive cross-posting. The draft has been written from a scholarly standpoint that is new and may be as well reviewed by other portals and wiki projects than those from the climate change action group. Therefore some requests for reviews contentwise and some to have a look on my prose. With your threat of a content ban, its sort of contradictory to claim this guy does believe the climate articles are under group think, no AGF, lets ban him and ask various members of the group "may I use your quotes, we need to get rid of that guy". I doubt the excessivity, but I take the warning seriously. ;) Serten II (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You have been on the record with claims about Hulmes study being "fringe". According scholar, it is the most quoted serious third party source about the history of the IPCC. Thats my reasoning to state a strong groupthink in the field, besides the rather aggressive tone. Serten II (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing I said, or am said to have said, is relevant to this canvassing analysis. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have to to care too much about your POV, but I am not amused about the group think it seems to contain. I ask to involve serious perspectives besides the American party lines. Serten II (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy holiday season

 * Have you read the new interesting edition of Bertrand Russell: Why I am burning in the Hell? - exiting!Hafspajen (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where to put him. Hafspajen There was the joke about the devil having a new girlfriend on earth, she's interested to see hell, but with a return ticket. Devil, no prob, I show you the place. Great place, Club med like. But there is a steel door at the end. The girl asks Satan, to have a look. OK, behind the door is pain, hot sulfur and whips. Girl: I thought that was hell was like overall. Satan, oh thats just for the catholics, they need it like this;) Serten II (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Monika Gruber is the answer, and Russell the last oneSaftleven Temptation of St Anthony.jpgFruit stall in Lord Street - geograph.org.uk - 1207245.jpg
 * Was a Protestant girlfriend of his? Still I would never liked him, anyway. He had thrown things on Luther. Hafspajen (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How did the Wartburg dispute resolution board look like? Serten II (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Long beard, hunting and no books allowed. Behave yourself. Or I hit you in the head with a nut. Hafspajen (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)




 * Dumbledore? I solemnly swear that I am up to no good. Hunting (dress?) Jo, ho! Tralalalala! Serten II (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ? Dumbledore? - Warburg - The Luther Room! and the famous Temptation of Luther. Disguised as common nobleman. He had to grow long hair and beard to disguise his monk tonsure, was not allowed to read books outside the castle not to give himself away ... - it was not that usual that noblemen picked up a book while eating at the pub, which he did all the time. So they gave him a page-boy to watch him and stop him reading outside his own room. Not to talk about the weird nights he had, things flying around and so. Hafspajen (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reformation Polka Trallalalalalaaa. Hafspajen (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * O-h Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi.

O Fortune,like the moon,you are changeable, ever waxing, and waning; hateful life, first oppresses, and then soothes, as fancy takes it; poverty and power, it melts them like ice. Fate - monstrous, and empty, you whirling wheel, you are malevolent, well-being is vain, and always fades to nothing, shadowed and veiled, you plague me too; now through the game I bring my bare back to your villainy. Fate is against me in health, and virtue, driven on and weighted down, always enslaved. So at this hour without delay pluck the vibrating strings; since Fate strikes down the strong man,
 * O Fortuna
 * velut luna
 * statu variabilis,
 * semper crescis
 * aut decrescis;
 * vita detestabilis
 * nunc obdurat
 * et tunc curat
 * ludo mentis aciem,
 * egestatem,
 * potestatem
 * dissolvit ut glaciem.
 * Sors immanis
 * et inanis,
 * rota tu volubilis,
 * status malus,
 * vana salus
 * semper dissolubilis,
 * obumbrata
 * et velata
 * michi quoque niteris;
 * nunc per ludum
 * dorsum nudum
 * fero tui sceleris.
 * Sors salutis
 * et virtutis
 * michi nunc contraria,
 * est affectus
 * et defectus
 * semper in angaria.
 * Hac in hora
 * sine mora
 * corde pulsum tangite;
 * quod per sortem
 * sternit fortem,
 * mecum omnes plangite!. Hafspajen (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Try Dispute Resolution
In the climate and science pages, please move along to WP:Dispute resolution. See also this comment in the article talk pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Why? Serten II (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Native Americans in German popular culture
 Harrias  talk 00:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lady Hutton
 Harrias  talk 00:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gustav-Adolf-Werk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Havanna. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Serten II!


Happy New Year! Serten II, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Just letting you know that
<<do you feel that I am treating you bad? Hafspajen (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. George Peabody Gooch applies- such articles are possible only in a "community of Hafspajen's" (Yvas and Gerdas). Serten II (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Was fur eine shit. No article??? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_S%C3%B6hne_der_Gro%C3%9Fen_B%C3%A4rin

refs-http://www.jacknilan.com/nativeamerican/sons.html - dissssssapointed. Hafspajen (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Goodness, great Man-north-of-pictures. At least "The Indians finish many of their sentences with "how (greeting)", thats an article of Serten-Tathonca, in two tongues. de:Liselotte Welskopf-Henrich was dealing with two obsessions of "men-drinking-beer-in-tipi" - lots-of old-collums-but-not paying debt and Red Indiunns. I think I take the task of translating an article about Lieselotte. Serten II (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Howgh Red Indiunns ar MY favourite, you know. Mattotaupa and Tokei-ihto were my favourites and heros. I was spending countless hours sneaking around everywhere, so no noises or a branch cracking under my feet would give me away...  Hafspajen (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Howgh! The enWP coverage of Gustave Aimard nor Emilio Salgari is rather poor, no Indiunn is mentioned. Bad bad. Serten II (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Humboldtian education ideal
Hello! Your submission of Humboldtian education ideal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! czar ⨹   04:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Science studies, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Evans and Greg Myers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Olim L'Berlin
Harrias talk 12:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 18,000 views? Wow. Add it to DYKSTATS! (BTW I see Barbie got 6,000 - good.)


 * I was so disgusted at recent Wikipolitics, I turned my back on responsibility and created Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great. Including a photo of a horse's ass.


 * Speaking of articles, did you see this? And its source? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Elop is a good boy! What is the point about such articles? WP is zirious biziness! Serten II (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Serten
Nr II - did you do that? Hafspajen (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the poacher? Serten II (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Hate the Swabs article ...Hafspajen (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Serten, this is, English teacher. Asked her to look at the Humbold. Hafspajen (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Corrine, I am bad at copyediting, but love to write weird and flowery entries. If you have something in mind or just have prefered topics, I will do work on it in exchange. 23:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Humboldtian model of higher education
Hello, Serten! Hafspajen asked me to go over the article Humboldtian model of higher education. I did that a few hours ago and made a few copy-edits. It wasn't bad. There were not many problems. Now I'm going through the article once more to polish the prose. I'm still working on one or two sentences, and will finish those tomorrow. I have a question for you. In the section Humboldtian model of higher education, I saw the acronym "KAIM". I thought perhaps it should be spelled out at least once, at first mention of it. I found the name of the organization in the references and copied it before the first "KAIM". However, I think it may have some quotation marks that are out of place. I just copied it the way it was in the references. Can you check that, and fix it in both places? Also, perhaps you could translate that into English before "KAIM". CorinneSD (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Corinne! Thnx for your valuable effort and support. I just have added some explanation on KAIM, hope that is fixing the problem. A verbal translation won't help much, since konzertierte Aktion is a sort of Idiom alleging to the 1969 Grand coaltion economic policy. 22:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just saw what you added, and I'm sorry to tell you that it didn't help much, partly because you didn't translate the German name of the organization and partly because it is not worded in colloquial (common, understandable) English. Even if K. A. is difficult to translate, you should make an effort to explain what it is in English the first time you mention it, not later. Does it mean "Joint International Marketing Initiative for German Educational Development and ....? I'm going to copy the whole passage here so you can look at it:


 * Current problems and strategic aspects of German educational politics are being dealt with by Konzertierte Aktion Internationales Marketing für den Bildungs- und Forschungsstandort Deutschland (KAIM). KAIM involves common efforts of the German educational stakeholders (state and federal government, universities, trade unions and industry associations) and tries to improve the marketing and the position of German education and research capacities. The term KAIM itself refers to earlier cooperative efforts, e.g. the de:Konzertierte Aktion end of the 1960ies, which took a similar all-stakeholders approach on labor conflicts, competivitity and economic growth.

(a) It's not clear what you mean by "strategic aspects". Can you explain (here) what you mean so I can suggest better wording?

(b) I believe by the sentence "The term KAIM itself refers to," you are trying to explain where the phrase Konzertierte Aktion comes from. If that's correct, we just need to tighten up the language to make that clear. Do you really need "e.g. the de:Konzertierte Aktion"?

(c) I'm wondering why you're using the word "stakeholders". That term is usually used in business, where each stakeholder, or party, has a financial interest in the joint business. In education, especially higher education, I think we would use the word "partners" -- at least in the U.S.

(d) The middle sentence, the one that begins, "KAIM involves...," is all right. I'm just thinking that the word "position" is a little vague. Position in what sense? Perhaps "prestige"?

I'm going to re-copy the passage from above, and cross out and substitute some things, and leave a few things open that you need to fill in or clarify for me.


 * Current problems and [strategic aspects] (?) of German educational politics policy are being dealt with handled by Konzertierte Aktion Internationales Marketing für den Bildungs- und Forschungsstandort Deutschland (Joint International Marketing Initiative for Germany as an hub for education and research hub) (KAIM). KAIM involves common efforts of the German educational stakeholders stakeholders in German education (state and federal government, universities, trade unions and industry associations) and tries to improve the marketing and market position of German education and research capacities. The term Konzertierte Aktion in KAIM itself refers to earlier cooperative efforts, e.g. the de:Konzertierte Aktion from end of the the late 1960 ie s, which took a similar all-stakeholders joint approach on to labor conflicts, competivity and economic growth.

Re-written:


 * Current problems and strategy [?] of German educational policy are handled by Konzertierte Aktion Internationales Marketing für den Bildungs- und Forschungsstandort Deutschland (Joint International Marketing Initiative for...) (KAIM). KAIM involves common efforts of the partners in German education (state and federal government, universities, trade unions and industry associations) and tries to improve the marketing and prestige of German education and research capacities. The term KAIM itself refers to earlier cooperative efforts from the late 1960s, which took a similar joint approach to labor conflicts, competivity and economic growth.

I think this is better. We can still work on it if more needs to be done. CorinneSD (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Corrinne. I think you took stakeholder for shareholder, the Konzertierte Aktion is about Stakeholders, which is much broader. I translated "Standort" (verbally site) to hub, since thats the goal. KAIM is more than marketing, it does as well embody strategy discussions among the stakeholders and aims to streamline that. Serten II (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

BR Serten II (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Current problems and strategy planning of German educational policy are handled by Konzertierte Aktion Internationales Marketing für den Bildungs- und Forschungsstandort Deutschland (Joint International Marketing Initiative for Germany as an hub for education and research) (KAIM). KAIM involves common efforts of the main stakeholders in German education (state and federal government, universities, trade unions and industry associations) and tries to improve the marketing and market position of German education and research capacities. The term Konzertierte Aktion in KAIM itself refers to earlier cooperative efforts from the late 1960s, which took a similar joint approach to labor conflicts, competivity and economic growth.

(This is more difficult than I though it would be. It's the difficulties of translation.)


 * Policy planning and problem resolution for German education are handled by ....

but a "joint initiative" is a short-term program/project. If it is not that, then we need to remove those terms. I understand "hub", but I think a better word could be found. CorinneSD (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

2) I'd like to ask you about this sentence from the lede:


 * Sometimes called the Humboldtian Model, it combines the arts and sciences and comprehensive general learning and cultural knowledge.

Normally, without some additional cues or punctuation, we don't have sentences with a string of words or phrases joined by "and" as this one is:


 * it combines the arts and sciences and comprehensive general learning and cultural knowledge.

I know that the arts and sciences is a common phrase, so perhaps you mean those as one item. If you count that as one item, you still have two more phrases. We'll call these "A" (that is, the arts and sciences), "B", and "C". It's not clear whether you mean:

(a) it combines A, B, and C, (in other words, it combines all three together), or

(b) it combines A with B and C, or

(c) it combines A and B with C. Do you see what I mean?

Let me write them out in full:

(a) it combines the arts and sciences, comprehensive general learning, and cultural knowledge.

(b) it combines the arts and sciences with comprehensive general learning and cultural knowledge.

(c) it combines the arts and sciences and comprehensive general learning with cultural knowledge.

If none of these expresses what you mean, let me know what you mean and I'll make further suggestions. CorinneSD (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. its was planned as a sort of climax of dichotomies. Let me try to restructure it.

(d) "Sometimes called the Humboldtian Model, it combines the arts and sciences, comprehensive general learning and teaching, specific expertise and cultural knowledge with a high level of ambition and freedom for teachers and students"

I hope it sounds more English now (shy smile) Serten II (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it sounded like English before; it just needed a little improvement to the phrasing. This is a little better. I see you added some phrases (maybe too much). By "specific expertise", I think you mean real-life, or practical expertise -- the expertise of people working in real industry or other jobs. I think instead of "specific expertise", I would use "practical expertise". Regarding the last part of the sentence, "with a high level of ambition and freedom for teachers and students", I wonder (a) how one can measure ambition -- does that mean that a medium level of ambition would be of no use? and (b) why the ambition of teachers would be important. Unless it is really important to describe the Humboldtian model of higher education, I think the word "ambition" complicates the sentence. Perhaps "freedom" is enough. CorinneSD (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (d) "Sometimes called the Humboldtian Model, it combines the arts and sciences, integrates comprehensive general learning and teaching and blends detailed factual knowledge with broader philosphical and cultural perspectives. Humboldt provided a high level of freedom for teachers and students.

Its n ot exact "practical" but the en detail factoids of a certain science, combined with broader (philosphical) perspectives. I added some verbs and made the freedom part a separate sentence. CYA! 23:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a little better. I've got to ask you some things, though.


 * (a) When you say, "It combines the arts and sciences", do you mean it combines the arts with the sciences? What does that really mean? Or do you mean it combines the arts-and-sciences (added hyphens just to emphasize that it's one item) with something else? With what? (When you added verbs in front of the other two phrases, there is nothing in the sentence with which the arts and sciences can be combined.) (Instead of re-writing the sentence, it would help if you just answered my questions.)


 * yes. The anglo approach sees a wider gap between "science" and e.g. humanities. Humboldt (and German idealism) uses Wissenschaft much broader - its all what you do on university, combined by philosphy. Serten II (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (b) When you write that it "integrates comprehensive general learning and teaching", I assume that you don't mean "integrates comprehensive general learning with teaching". If you do, I would change "and" to "with". If you don't, you need to make clear with what it integrates c.g.l.a.t.


 * Point is, others had "drill schools" which did not involve research. Humboldt wanted students and teachers being involved in actual research while learning and teaching. OK? 00:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (c) The last part, "blends detailed factual knowledge with broader philosophical and cultural perspectives," is clear enough, but I think "combines" works better than "blends" (but then you can't use "combines" earlier in the sentence).


 * Yes Minister! 00:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to give you such a hard time. I wish I knew German so that I could help with the translation. I'm not sure that the addition of more verbs was the answer. "Combines", "integrates", and "blends" are all pretty close in meaning. At least you cleared up one thing: "detailed factual knowledge" (I'm not sure "detailed" is necessary) instead of "practical expertise". If you could just answer my questions, I can do the re-writing, which you can then critique. CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I am happy to discuss that topic with you, it helps mne as well to come across better in future articles. 00:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Good. How about this:


 * Sometimes called the Humboldtian Model, it more completely integrates the humanities with the sciences, general learning and teaching with research, and factual knowledge with broader philosophical and cultural perspectives, all in an atmosphere that provides a high degree of freedom for both teachers and students. - CorinneSD (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC):


 * whar you compare with "more"? I think one could use that to show the anglosaxon dichotomy c.p.snow ec, since Wissenschaft makes no difference between humanities and  "science".  The german humboldtian model uses philosophy as the missing link /bridge. Lets try three sentences. Full stop after model. Then :humboldt  used  German term of Wissenschaft, encompassing science and humanities under the roof of philosophy. His appraoch integrates .... regards 23:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your participation, but would you please sign your comments with four tildes ~ so we know who you are? Regarding your suggestion, I think one well-written sentence would be better here. I guess I used the comparative "more completely integrates" in response to your comment, above, "yes. The anglo approach sees a wider gap between "science" and e.g. humanities." If the anglo approach sees a wider gap, then the H'n. model sees a narrower gap (opposite to wider). But now you say that in the H'n. model there is no gap. So I have no problem removing the comparative form. Regarding "Wissenschaft", unless you give a brief translation right here, using the German term is not helpful to English speakers who don't know German.


 * Sometimes called the Humboldtian Model, it more completely integrates the humanities with the sciences, general learning and teaching with research, and factual knowledge with broader philosophical and cultural perspectives, all in an atmosphere that provides a high degree of freedom for both teachers and students.


 * I think the verb "integrates" works well with all three phrases, making a nicely constructed sentence, but if you really think the second and third phrases deserve different verbs, let me know and I'll work on it. Also, I've asked User:Gerda Arendt to help, and she said she'd look at this on Monday. CorinneSD (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I remember having said after Monday. I have a little more time today than expected, but only a little, and several things to do first ;)

Requesting a QPQ
Hi Serten II, hope you are well. I just gave the checkmark of approval at your DYK; good work on that article. If it is convenient for you to do so, would you please review my humble nomination which is also stuck? Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * (watching) define stuck ;) - my view is that you have a reviewer. I would not interfere unless the nom stays without a further comment for a week or two. Many noms don't get any reviewer at all (would be more important), and some are undecided for much longer (I saw October 2014). Patience, please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Gerda Arendt is sorta right, Prhartcom's two souls is in a "socialist waiting community" (Queue), but that's far from being stuck in the mud. I would not help there, but if you have anther one, feel free to invite my comments. Serten II (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Humboldtian model of higher education
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Pius Walder
Harrias talk 00:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Serten. It is sad, this with Yngvadottir. Hafspajen (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Führer
Please abide by WP:BRD and take your proposed changes to the talk page of the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Civility: warning
"Get lost" isn't acceptable as an edit comment William M. Connolley (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sort of surprised that you assume you have the right to ask for this. I wasnt aware of the format, but I would have been able to use it on a dozen of your comments. Even worse, I never have seen any sign of acknoledgement from your side for the work of others. You diss and dismiss, you ignore and depreciate, you call the contributions of others with names, from tosh till senseless and claim to be ever right, even in the front of actual science you ignore and offend. In the case we came to me you succeeeded in frustrating a real expert in the field, you ignored the ongoing discussion about the BBC hyping Alhazen, and you hampered improvements of an article in a rather bad state. In your case, its been even stated in the press that you have been damaging Wikipedia. We currently loose people like Yngvadottir, it would be better guys like you took a break. Thats the reasoning behind my comment, which may sound bitter, but is serious about the state of this project. Serten II (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Serten II, if you by Info" style="border: none !important; display: inline-block !important; text-indent: 0px !important; float: none !important; font-weight: bold !important; height: auto !important; margin: 0px !important; min-height: 0px !important; min-width: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important; text-transform: uppercase !important; text-decoration: underline !important; vertical-align: baseline !important; width: auto !important; background: transparent !important;">indeed left an edit comment such as stated above, as an uninvolved editor I strongly encourage you to please examine your own behaviour. As editors, we are required to always assume good faith and always be civil to all editors. Prhartcom (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Prhartcom, based on the "If" I have the impression that youre involved and, without reading what went on (neither the link he gave here nor my reasoning) support Williams request for civility. That said, I have already done some soulsearching on my part opf the story. As said, I see civility as something that is needed and possible between peers and I so far never have seen or experienced WMC living to the rules. Serten II (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No Serten, I am not involved in whatever this is about. I am glad to hear you are taking positive steps to improve your attitude with peers here at Wikipedia, as you know we are all volunteers who deserve civil treatment and an assumption of good faith. Best wishes. Prhartcom (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yawn. By not reading but commenting you have involved yourself. I don't see WMC as a peer neither as someone still deserving good faith. I lost that, based on a behavior that is constantly far from any acceptable level of civility and lead to the loss of expert editors and hampered the improvement of various articles. If you want to contribute, start reading what happened. Serten II (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sir, please examine your behaviour. Look how you are treating me right now. You are treating me with incivility. Look how you are treating this other person. Of course they deserve good faith, it is a pillar of Wikipedia editing and a requirement of us all. Do you not even remember me? We have worked together more than once. But for this posting, I happened to see someone suggest that you improve your civility and I decided to agree with them while encouraging you to improve, as I remembered the way you treated me in the past, the way you probably treat everyone. Why not just stop doing this to people? Never tell someone to get lost, that is unacceptable! We are all volunteers like yourself and we all deserve to be treated properly. Anyway, I need to leave this post now, but I wish the very best for you. Have a good day today. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh ;) Its better to read a post and discussion before start commenting. Thats all ;) Serten II (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Serten, Old Warrior
Did you checked your old user talkpage? Simple Serten so to speak. Hafspajen (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Check here. Maybe you need to explain it. Or you possibly could be merged with yourself .... Hafspajen (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thnx Hafspajen! Great Easter present, to renuvile oneself. ! Serten II (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Serten, it is here you have to talk to Keegan, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan_(WMF) - he will never respond to your post here. Hafspajen (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thnx again, done so. Serten II (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Word "Insofar"
Correct usage --Magnus Puer (sermo) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reiner Grundmann


The article Reiner Grundmann has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability is not established, poorly cited, most cites link to self published blog posts, issues have been pointed out a year ago, nothing has improved.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. prokaryotes (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Tag removed, explained. Hilarious and contentious.Serten 12:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I moved that from my user page. Sorta sloppy from the very begin. Serten 00:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Sigh Serten Talk 02:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Shumona Sinha

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/literatur/shumona-sinhas-erschlagt-die-armen-asylbehoerde-als-luegenfabrik-a-1059080.html http://www.kulturradio.de/rezensionen/buch/2015/Shumona-Sinha-Erschlagt-die-Armen.html http://www.deutschlandradiokultur.de/shumona-sinha-erschlagt-die-armen-frauen-leiden-maenner.1270.de.html?dram:article_id=329111 http://www.zeit.de/kultur/2015-09/shumona-sinha-erschlagt-die-armen http://www.edition-nautilus.de/programm/belletristik/buch-978-3-89401-820-7.html

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thnx dear Bot, but I am not as experienced as to take part here. Polentarion Talk 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

.
Siegesallee is not too good. Need attention, no? Hows life? Hafspajen (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Üch been ain Berlinner. Yoire right, its just a mixture of Kaiser and Führer. Lack of maidens. The Puppenallee was used for dancing events of servants, "dancing till the puppets" meant it was a real party. Obama took his speech at the Siegessäule, after Merkel didnt allow him the Brandenburg gate. Polentarion Talk 18:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I made some quick and basic changes in the entry, but its not easy to rewrite the rest. There were some larger errors - the road was not destroyed in the war, but flattened on purpose afterwards. The puppen legend is a popular story in Berlin, but seems to be of elder origin. Needs some time. Polentarion Talk 18:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Andreas Anton has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Andreas Anton. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andreas Anton (November 24)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Andreas Anton and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Andreas_Anton Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SwisterTwister&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Andreas_Anton reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister  talk  22:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bionade-Biedermeier has been accepted
 Bionade-Biedermeier, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SwisterTwister  talk  22:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Bionade-Biedermeier help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Note
de:Good Bye Mohammed, Ignaz Goldziher, FAZ Ohlig Heise Ohlig Verdammung der SB Schule.- Patricia Crone

Etta Federn, etc?!
Hello again! Could you possibly help me change the coding so that Gecko990 no longer links to the Robert Karjel page? I can't figure out how to do it! Thank you so much. And DYK.... very intriguing! Thank you again!! Gecko990 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, hope you like it with an actual gecko :) . Polentarion Talk 23:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I LOVE IT! I have two pet Leopard Geckos that are, believe it or not, twenty-five years old. Danks again!Gecko990 (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

BLP and language
Please be very careful about language in the area of WP:BLP. Usually best to err on the side of caution. Alexbrn (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You better tell the academy. Quote


 * Les Académies souhaitent attirer l’attention sur plusieurs graves lacunes de l’article de G.E.Séralini et al.
 * L’orchestration de la notoriété d’un scientifique ou d’une équipe constitue une faute grave lorsqu’elle concourt à répandre auprès du grand public des peurs ne reposant sur aucune conclusion établie.
 * Ne disposant pas des informations suffisantes, il en résulte chez le consommateur un renforcement de la peur des OGM, propagée par une presse « catastrophiste ». Cela est particulièrement grave pour les populations qui consomment des OGM en grande quantité comme l’Afrique du Sud.
 * Ils ont ainsi contribué à alimenter des peurs totalement irrationnelles dans la mesure où les résultats présentés n’ont aucune validité scientifique.

As said, they concluded grave errors, a sort of orchestrated PR game, based on scientifically useless findings trying to play on completely irrational public fears which did not respond to any established conclusions and have no scientific value at all. Polentarion Talk 15:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. But trust me I'm trying to help here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Lets keep it like that then. Polentarion Talk 16:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andreas Anton (December 20)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Andreas Anton and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Andreas_Anton Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Andreas_Anton reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A very merry Yule
<div style="; float: left; margin-top: 3px; background-color: #DC143C; border: 1px solid #8888aa; padding: 10px; width: 600px; clear: both;"> <div style="; border-style:solid; border-color:#D2B48C; background-color:#006400; border-width:5px; text-align:left; vertical-align;top; padding:18px;" class="plainlinks"> Wishing you twelve nights and days of warmth, happiness and conviviality this Midwinter. Yngvadottir (talk)

Al Maghtas
Will you please address the review here Template:Did you know nominations/Al Maghtas as various alternative hooks have been added by you along with lot of text? Nvvchar . 02:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I doubt I am able to cope with those requirements. Polentarion Talk 03:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Etta Federn
Allen3 talk 12:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace
Thank you for your support and wishes, returned with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! Die Glocke läutet auf deutsch, heute und morgen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Al-Maghtas
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Bionade-Biedermeier
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andreas Anton has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Andreas Anton, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Andreas_Anton help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

DYK for Alcohol in Afghanistan
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Heimkommen
Hello! Your submission of Heimkommen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taharrush gamea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bundeskriminalamt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Heimkommen
<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Bionade-Biedermeier for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bionade-Biedermeier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bionade-Biedermeier& 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Legacypac (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 15:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Colossus of Ostermunzel
I think the article about the Colossus of Ostermunzel is now ready to be linked via DYK on the main page. Would you like to insert the symbol, ideally without any 'if's and 'but's, if you agree that the required actions have been conducted? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reifenstein schools, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Estland and Reifenstein. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I mucked about with this. And I forgot last night to say I also received your e-mail. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I have little brain these days - see my contributions for one reason. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines
Things will go better in the discussion at Creationism if you limit your comments to discussing content, not contributors. This is described in the talk page guidelines. The essence of WP:CIVILITY is not to make remarks that anger/irritate other people and create friction, which gets in the way of getting work done. Basically, don't be a jerk. Things like this "sort of state of denial" are going to 1) provoke similar insults aimed at you from equally inexperienced editors; 2) make some people who let their emotions get away with them, hate you and argue with you just for the hell of it; 3) make the remaining experienced and self-restrained editors think of you as not worth listening to.  I for one would prefer not to waste my time reading snark.  But if you want to continue, I have told you how others will react.  You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "similarly unexperienced editor" sounds good. I have been annoyed for sure. For the sake of consensus, I deleted that comment. Point is I would like to improve the article based in recent research and get it in line with current developments (which include the surge of the phenomen). Polentarion Talk 03:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Roly Bain
Someone else started a bit later and wrote him up (see the discussion at Drmies' talk page); Fortuna's draft should probably be merged or something. There are actually other sources besides the 4 obituaries, which may contain useful info. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thnx! I did some expanding and merging and mentioned Fortunas draft in the edit comment. Polentarion Talk 00:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Polentarion! Thanks for all your help with the Roly Bain article. But there is one problem: I don't think we are allowed to add new hooks to the DYK nomination, after it has already been approved. At this point it is supposed to be "good to go", ready to put on the front page. So it shouldn't include a proposed hook that actually wasn't reviewed and approved. Or I guess we could contact Cwmhiraeth and ask them to take another look and see if they approve the new hook. What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hallo Melanie! You worked hard on my English. I saw that you stated having burned fingers at DYK. I been there as well. But lets go along 'No plaintiff, no judge'. My personal wikilawyering: If a third party actively chooses my hook (which is reasonably sourced by Bains's books), it would state a sort of review then. If not, the overall approval is not being touched. I just came from the poaching article and I am not in the mood of being too legalistic ;) Polentarion Talk 13:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, works for me. --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skeptical movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skeptic magazine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Tags on article Skeptical movement
Regarding your recent double reversion on the page Skeptical movement of its tags: I'd like to point you to the available writeups on these, specifically WP:TAGGING and WP:CLEANUPTAG. I have explained the addition of these tags both in the edit summary and in the templates themselves, but most importantly these improvements are obvious that they are necessary. If you believe that the article Skeptical movement, as currently written, actually does focus on a social movement as described in the lead, rather than the general topic of scientific skepticism, and that the lead section adequately summarizes the body and does not introduce new information, then discuss this on the Talk page. Your reversions amount to nothing less than edit warring and are highly unconstructive.

As the article is currently written, it does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards for MOS:LEAD, while the body of the article reads like a WP:COATRACK on scientific skepticism. This is due primarily to the change of topic focus from a general idea of scientific skepticism to a social movement. As such, the entire body of the article needs to be updated to reflect this change in perspective and subject matter. Instead of removing the tags, I would propose that the necessary changes are made instead. In the meantime, such tags serve the purposes of alerting readers that the content is being radically altered, and alerting other editors to assist in refocusing the article. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 17:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If you tag an article, write stuff like that on the talk page. Read the talk page, read the article: Nearly the complete body of the article was already long before about people and organizations, will say movement and the method is just a part of that. That said, I asked as early as 2014 to move it to movement. Polentarion Talk 17:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:TAGGING above; it's not mandatory to write in the talk page when adding a tag, particularly since the reasons for the tag were clearly outlined in both the edit summaries and the tags themselves. I should also be clear; I am not objecting to you moving the article to Skeptical movement, simply pointing out that many changes need to be made to the article in order for it to focus on the movement. Other suggestions being discussed were to WP:CFORK parts of the article. I don't believe the article in its present state sufficiently focuses on the core subject. However, it could if the body was rewritten with the new focus in mind. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 18:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry Adrian, but there not much changes to be done, we could have moved that stuff already in 2014. It always was mainly about the movement. Forking was about the rational inquiry content, which is a subtopic. I would prefer more AGF and less red tape. And yes, I expect a note on the talk page for a multitag. Especially if it is disputed wether the tag is warranted. Polentarion Talk 18:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Tags on article Skeptical movement
Regarding your recent double reversion on the page Skeptical movement of its tags: I'd like to point you to the available writeups on these, specifically WP:TAGGING and WP:CLEANUPTAG. I have explained the addition of these tags both in the edit summary and in the templates themselves, but most importantly these improvements are obvious that they are necessary. If you believe that the article Skeptical movement, as currently written, actually does focus on a social movement as described in the lead, rather than the general topic of scientific skepticism, and that the lead section adequately summarizes the body and does not introduce new information, then discuss this on the Talk page. Your reversions amount to nothing less than edit warring and are highly unconstructive.

As the article is currently written, it does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards for MOS:LEAD, while the body of the article reads like a WP:COATRACK on scientific skepticism. This is due primarily to the change of topic focus from a general idea of scientific skepticism to a social movement. As such, the entire body of the article needs to be updated to reflect this change in perspective and subject matter. Instead of removing the tags, I would propose that the necessary changes are made instead. In the meantime, such tags serve the purposes of alerting readers that the content is being radically altered, and alerting other editors to assist in refocusing the article. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 17:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If you tag an article, write stuff like that on the talk page. Read the talk page, read the article: Nearly the complete body of the article was already long before about people and organizations, will say movement and the method is just a part of that. That said, I asked as early as 2014 to move it to movement. Polentarion Talk 17:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:TAGGING above; it's not mandatory to write in the talk page when adding a tag, particularly since the reasons for the tag were clearly outlined in both the edit summaries and the tags themselves. I should also be clear; I am not objecting to you moving the article to Skeptical movement, simply pointing out that many changes need to be made to the article in order for it to focus on the movement. Other suggestions being discussed were to WP:CFORK parts of the article. I don't believe the article in its present state sufficiently focuses on the core subject. However, it could if the body was rewritten with the new focus in mind. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 18:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry Adrian, but there not much changes to be done, we could have moved that stuff already in 2014. It always was mainly about the movement. Forking was about the rational inquiry content, which is a subtopic. I would prefer more AGF and less red tape. And yes, I expect a note on the talk page for a multitag. Especially if it is disputed wether the tag is warranted. Polentarion Talk 18:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Roly Bain
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Polentarion. Thank you. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  09:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note taken! Polentarion Talk 21:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Twisting people's names and using them as attack terms, eg "Hoblings" is also a failure to AGF
As you did at Talk:Myron Ebell. That's a clear violation of discretionary sanctions. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What u expect me to do? The guy did a classical attack piece - the german version is even worse and its along his normal behavior. Polentarion Talk 17:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I expect you to change your behavior - or expect to be blocked or banned. Doug Weller  talk 19:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording, I was sort of annoyed and angry. I saw what happened with User:Zigzig20s. Thats something WP should be ashamed of, nothing else. The Ebell article had been converted into a smear piece and you come up with threats like that. Polentarion Talk 21:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Polentarion, while I'm disappointed with your bizarre editing style, I must commend you for your very accurate assessment of Zigzig20s treatment. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Magonolia, there was one action from yours I assumed to be bizarre as well. See, I added some tags to the Ebell piece first (compare )- and then I cut it down to essentials and deleted my own tags. That said, your comment about me deleting tags wasn't hitting the bulls eye. You later seem to have edited the wrong section on this talk page. I might have deleted some references in the Ebell piece (it then was no article at all) but I have corrected that later on. In so far I would have preferred you not running to the Admin board but trying to get into dialogue with me here. Best regards. Polentarion Talk 22:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Polentarion. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Skeptic movement
You need to edit much more carefully. Too much jocularity and too much unsourced, editorializing content. Do not add unsourced content to Wikipedia; follow sources. Do not add jocularity. About the 1993 demographic discussion - If the profile is the same today, bring a source for that. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thing is, describing details like Wunder having a similar problem like Tuzzi are very much covered by basic WP tenets. In so far, I don't have to care. I am writing articles and I am not interested in Wikiquote. We loose readability and authors. Your fault-. Polentarion Talk 00:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thing is, when you edit like that consistently, others have to go over your edits carefully, wasting their time, and your edits don't end up sticking, which means you wasted your own time. Everybody loses. If you edit in a trustworthy way everybody wins. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When you edited the sceptical movement, well sourced bearded "white geriatric males" was reduced suddenly to "male" only. How come? That said, don't come up preaching me water while spilling wine. Polentarion Talk 01:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The essay on your user talk
Have you considered doing a blog post for Wikipediocracy?

You've got your finger on something important with regards to ignoring academic sources, but I note that we do have an article on Art of the Deal, so somebody appears to have read it. (Also, for someone as determinedly non-political as I am, the fact I instantly remembered the title of the book is disquieting.) Personally, I believe we need both academics and the newspapers; but it's not good when editors resist the very notion of citing scholarly analyses, just as it would not be good to rely only on the yellow press and political blogs, or alternatively to wait for an article with a doi before including anything about a public figure's career. The challenge of encyclopedia writing on such a person, post-Britannica and other slow and intentionally brief works, is to serve the reader up an intelligent account drawing on both recent and long-view sources. Otherwise we might as well be Wikinews, or Britannica.

I am not a planner. I find planning stifles creativity, including the creativity needed to lasso a moving target like the career of a person who is still in mid-career. In any case, it's impossible given that this is a wiki: a collaboration open to all (subject of course to discretionary sanctions, blocks, edit restrictions, and bans). So I'm afraid I can't support your view that articles should be planned. I'm also leery of the suggestion that research should be based on the outline, because that almost guarantees one will merely confirm their original assumptions. In any case, again, it just won't work here: we can't restrict editing on any article to someone who's done the reading, and in any case people will disagree about what reading is essential ... and then someone is going to come along with something out of left field ... like you with Zizek, someone I imagine the American authors by and large hadn't even heard of. Letting everybody edit and having many people collaborate are the fundamental strengths of Wikipedia.

That said, I am determinedly non-political, and probably a fool. So here, I am going to ping, who hosts fascinating conversations on their talk page, including with many people who are sure I am a fool. Let's see what they have to say. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Thnx for the feedback and networking.

Your first section refers to a sort of WP Deborah number, the relation between the speed of quality sources being established and the amount of interest for a certain event or person covered by WP. If you refer to a Britannica age, youre are underestimating the actual speed, if you look on scholar, there are quite recent studies which could or should have been used. Some erratic examples
 * Gendered campaign tweets: The cases of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, J Lee, Y Lim - Public Relations Review, 2016 - Elsevier
 * Defi nitely Not Moralistic: State Political Culture and Support for Donald Trump in the Race for the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination Patrick I. Fisher, Seton Hall University
 * Bernie Bros and Woman Cards: Rhetorics of Sexism, Misogyny, and Constructed Masculinity in the 2016 Election Kelly Wilz Pages 357-360 | Published online: 21 Oct 2016
 * Donald Trump: Narcissist, Psychopath or Representative of the People? Anton Ashcroft October 2016
 * I have the impression that people refer to the press, since those studies often are rather complicated or deal with just a minor aspect. In the Dolezal case, I failed to get through with a study-based draft about the affair. I guess I failed to get through with the wording of some of them, way to high brow. That said, WP is not able to work without the press doing the dirty work or needs expert authors able to write understandeable stuff.

The second aspect is about planning.
 * You and I love to actually write your own article - about a topic one has individually researched. You don't ever tell me your Reichsautobahn article wasn't structured nor planned, do you? Did you ever face any problem on the talk page? I doubt it!
 * My examples are being based on disputed topics - and I do assume that you often keep out of those. That said, I see the tendency in disputed fields, that editors officially fight about microchanges, e.g. small sections and references. And the larger perspective gets lost. My idea of planning and discussing is that editors should openly discuss the basic narrative and structure of an article. WP doesnt provide neither instruments nor rules for that. But it should. If one doesn't willingly agree on the basic narrative, you end in turf battles. Will say, the editors fight about domination, not about content. de:Wikipedia:Projektdiskussion/Projekt_Moderation_f%C3%BCr_das_Autorenportal shows some tools. And sources should be used as means and points, not the personality defects of different editors. Take my experience with the de:Waldsterben article. I had started to use a Freiburg Uni DFG project (called, no kidding ''[[The Forests Sing Forever|

Und ewig sterben die Wälder]]''). It was real Forstwissenschaft and didn't take the treehuggers too serious. Just the title was a provocation for the classical deWP Bionade-Biedermeiers. But as it was real science, they had to swallow it as the basic outline of the article. The thing is, that this of cause is an ongoing thing. But an outline about important reads or basic narrative on the talk page would be helpful. Eeven if it has to be traded and adapted to new editors and their ideas.  tldnr and final point: We need a sort of Hayden_White Metahistory revolution for Wikipedia. Any article has a sort of metanarrative, any text is marked by strategies of explanation and narratology. Including Myron Ebell. If we embrace that fact, we would become able to deal with it rationally and meaningful. If not we end in turf battles and loosing possible and existing editors. Polentarion Talk 20:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And disputed articles may grow into patterns where different groups are being active. The problem starts when no one cares about the large picture. Or no one ever had read a major book or study. Like in the examples. The trump article got one single reference to a book about him.
 * Even worse is the very German tendency of Kritikabschnitte, cricism sections, e.g. in the German Nestle article. That is basically a two articles, a serious one and a garbage collector for the criticism. I did a separate German essay on that already.


 * I'd largely missed Hayden White; I should probably see how readable his famous book is. But yes, history involves the creation of a narrative, otherwise it's merely raw material. I looked back at the history of Reichsautobahn; here you see me sketching out subsections in advance, so to that extent I planned it. But both that and Heathen hofs, my other long article, largely wrote themselves after I'd marshalled the sources (in the case of Reichsautobahn, I made copious notes from two books, much of which I didn't use except to chase down page numbers to cite). I'm not one for outlining.


 * As I say, you have valid points. For an article like Trump, it would indeed be a good idea for editors to discuss how the article should be organized. I get the impression that on en:wp there are templates for what articles of some kinds should look like, which some WikiProjects actively try to enforce and some editors take very seriously. For example this detailed guideline for articles on schools, which is often not followed, and the general pattern for biography articles (which I'm sure is set out somewhere but a fast search didn't find it: Early life and education — Career — Private life (and death) — Filmography/Discography/Selected publications; that's very widely followed. I believe guidelines of that kind are being used to try to rein in disorganization and weirdness in the shape of articles, and that that's the main means of doing so here. But I'm not going to touch Criticism sections or Infoboxes in this context :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I already started to develope templates for talkpages, less for articles. I think about the proposal. Polentarion Talk 00:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

 * I believe you have already been alerted to the discretionary sanctions for climate change, but WP:BLP is also relevant to your editing of Myron Ebell and its talkpage. You're certainly not alone in showing temper at Talk:Myron Ebell, and I'm just about to post a general warning there. But your calling an opponent "honey" in the middle of a quarrel may be the worst I've seen. What on earth is it for, other than to condescend and bait and provoke? Please think twice before you click "save". Bishonen &#124; talk 17:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC).


 * I could have been more polite. That said, the article is a disgrace for Wikipedia and the talk page not much better. I will keep away for a while. Polentarion Talk 17:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Bishonen: How would you react if someone addressed you with Your contribution is as worthless as predictable. Of course I did not mean you with "others". Go away and let the serious people talk.? Polentarion Talk 22:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Good Yule!
<div style="; float: left; margin-top: 3px; background-color: orange; border: 1px solid #8888aa; padding: 10px; width: 400px; clear: both;"> <div style="; border-style:solid; border-color:#4682B4; background-color:#FC9; border-width:5px; text-align:left; vertical-align;top; padding:18px;" class="plainlinks"> Looking to the sunrise. Wishing you twelve nights and days of warmth, happiness and conviviality this Midwinter, and success in the new year. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK Suhl card reader case
— Maile (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andreas Anton


The article Andreas Anton has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence this person meets WP:PROF or WP:NAUTHOR"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)