User talk:Wilhelm meis/Archive 5

Your AFD nomination regardnig scientists opposing mainstream climate science
Hi,

I was just looking over your article and talk page contributions, and noticed that none of them appear to be related to any science topics whatsoever. Since this fact is irrelevant to the merits of your AFD nomination, I chose to ask this more personal query on your user talk page instead of the AFD page. While you are certainly under no obligation to answer, should you be so inclined, may I please ask why you are suddenly interested in the climate change topic, and why is your first editorial effort seeking to delete an entire climate page, instead just improving some other one? None of my business, perhaps, given the out of the blue AFD from an unknown over a highly contested article makes me wonder about the who the why and the why now..... but only if you don't mind sharing, of course. Tally ho. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how such an obvious POV fork helps the project, and apparently quite a few other editors agree with me. The fact that this was the article's 5th nomination for deletion and not much has changed should say quite a bit about the article's lack of broader community support, and quite a bit about what we can expect from this article in the future.  I'm not new to science-related articles, by the way, and certainly not new to science (in the real world), I just tend to find history and heraldry a bit more interesting.  But even if that were my first contribution to WP ever, would that invalidate my argument? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I already answered your closing question (in the negative).   Many people have opined that the article is a POV fork, but for that to be true there has to be another article(s) that report a different spin.  WP:POVFORK says in relevant part,
 * "In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies."
 * Unless I missed it, no one has made a convincing list of the article(s) on the other side of the POVFORK coin. What is the single best example of the other article in your opinion?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How about Global warming? I would say that any article that takes such a blatantly non-neutral view of the overall topic or focuses so narrowly on a WP:FRINGE group is necessarily a POV fork of the main topic.  In this case, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is a POV fork of Global warming in the same way that an article called, say, List of reasons people should not vote for Mitt Romney would be a POV fork of Mitt Romney, regardless of whether or not  List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, List of reasons people should vote for Mitt Romney, or any WP:OTHERSTUFF exists.  Per Jimmy Wales (mentioned under WP:UNDUE):
 * "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
 * I would say WP:FRINGE is a double-edged sword and that it applies whether an article seems to promote or disparage a fringe theory. Back to POV forking, however, per WP:NPOV:
 * "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia."
 * I see no room for ambiguity in the fact that Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, one of our most basic guiding principles, states "POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia. [full stop]" It's not just something to be considered and argued about for months on end. It's grounds for deletion.  What I don't understand is how the wide variance between this article and WP's fundamental policies has evaded several editors and a few admins in these deletion discussions.
 * By the way, the nom was not intended as a drive-by, and I apologize for my delayed response here. Unexpected events IRL demanded my attention so I was unable to follow up properly. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. As your nomination went to deletion review, and the decision was to "relist", all of this is appropriate for the post-review AFD talk page, and I'll reply there when appropriate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up
I read a comment of yours on the talk page of a page that now redirects to a page which has a misleading title (at least from my perspective). I reposted your comment on the redirected talk page talk:Welfare. I hope you don't mind. --84.250.230.158 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, and thank you for cross posting to the live discussion. Over the years, with my attention turned to other matters, I had forgotten all about the welfare articles.  I will try to become more actively involved in the discussion (connectivity issues permitting).  I am still not settled into my new living arrangements yet after an international household move, but that situation should be resolved relatively soon. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 22:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Welfare
As per the IP that contacted you above... the welfare set of articles as a whole are not in great shape. I've undone the massive changes the IP did, however I've restored many of the changes they did as well, most notably, moved much of the american-focused information in the generic Welfare article into Social programs in the United States, which is the current redirect target for most plausible search terms.

I've explained more in depth on the talk if you're interested. The summary is though, that if the IP wants to redefine the conceptual basis of the Welfare article, the proper approach is through requested moves, not slashing a 43k article to 3k unilaterally.

I don't know if this is an article you still follow, but I'd appreciate your input. Shadowjams (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I do intend to be an active participant as much as time and internet access will permit. I just moved from Japan to the United States and have not fully settled in yet. I expect to have internet service at my new house by the end of next week though.  Thank you for including me. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 03:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikimedia events in Missouri and Kansas!
You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:
 * Thanks Dominic! That actually sounds pretty cool!  Too bad I'm not in Missouri anymore.  I wonder if there are any events like this planned for Colorado. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Kripashankar Singh
Well. I declined the speedy. I cleaned out the thing. I won't be hailed as a hero for cleaning out the negative WP:BLP. At least the negative is toned down. This will need to go to the BLP notice board or even AFD. I just do speedy deletions. I don't more involved than that. Tried to salvage what I could. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  23:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for cleaning it up anyhow. I thought about cleaning it up myself, but then I wouldn't have left more than a couple sentences, so that's why I went speedy.  That, and because it was an attack page since creation.  Thanks for working on it. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 03:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * U R welcome. It does reek. Ain't much left. Dloh  cierekim  03:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Amery of Pavy, Siege of Calais (1348) for DYK?
Hello, Wilhelm meis. Thank you for writing up these two articles. I have nominated them for an appearance in the DYK? section on Wikipedia's MainPage. The nomination can be found here. You may want to join the discussion there in case the reviewers have questions or requests regarding the articles. Thank you. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! That's really cool. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 04:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Amery of Pavy
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Calais (1348)
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Calais (1346) and Donizetti's opera "L'assedio di Calais"
Hello: I saw the your had contibuted to the Siege 1346 article. I write a lot on opera and am planning to expand the existing article on L'assedio di Calais as a way of developing interest for English Touring Opera company's production which is being presented in 10 venues in England this coming March to May.

As it is one of Donizetti's rarer operas, I intend to be in England to see it and, right now, I am looking for additional information on the opera and wonder whether you know anything about it?

All the best, Viva-Verdi, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA


 * Sorry, I know a little about many things and a lot about a few things, but I know very little about opera. I can't say I have ever heard of that company or that opera, other than seeing it briefly mentioned in the Siege of Calais (1346) article.  I know more about heraldry, and Amery of Pavy was the subject of one of the few reliably attested historical examples of heraldic abatement after the 1348 siege of Calais, when Amery (the English-appointed Governor of Calais after the 1346 siege) had tried to sell Calais to a French knight.  I came across Amery's story while studying up on heraldic abatement.  That is about the extent of my connection to Calais, and I know even less about opera. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 05:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your revert of my edit
Hi. Regarding, I don't really belive that you don't see those figures in the source I linked to. Surely you must see, in the first line of the source I liked to, that immigrants in iceland are 8,1%. Also, in the second paragraph of that same source mentions that 36.1% of immigrants are of polish origin. And surely, you must see that 36.1% of 8.1% is 3.73%. I think you see where I am going by now.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the current source (at the time of this edit, witch is, nota bene, the same one as you reverted to) of ethnic groups in Iceland, in the infobox, no longer shows any data about immigrants in Iceland.--Snaevar (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see that, but it requires a bit more math to get there and I still think the table with the direct breakdown of whole numbers is a more straightforward source. Unfortunately, you are right, that is a temporary page and not really possible to link directly on a permanent basis. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 18:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:George Maharis
You were interested in the arrest of this person, weren't you? Join in discussion about whether to re-add the info. --George Ho (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I'll keep an eye on it, for what it's worth. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 20:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Bicycle Helmet talk page comment
Hi, on the Bicycle Helmet talk page you made reference to a warning over edit warring. I've made very few edits and had no idea I'd been warned. Could you point me to where I was so warned so I can find out why and amend my ways if needed? Thanks. Kiwikiped (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Kiwikiped. I see no warning for you. I must have clicked through the tabs a little too quickly. I'll slow down next time. I hope you do see the spirit of my post however, and work toward consensus on the talk page. Be aware that although your revert stands at the moment, if you do not build consensus for it on the talk page, it may not last very long. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 01:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

About your WP:RM/TR request for Mengu (Japanese facial armour)...
I wanted to let you know that I objected your technical request for moving Mengu (Japanese facial armour) to Mengu. I actually completely agreed with it being a technical move ... until I found the existence of Mengü (a disambiguation page). There might be some way to compromise on this, such as moving Mengü to Mengu (disambiguation), and then carrying on with your request being a truly technical move. Either way, the existence of Mengü complicates the request. Steel1943 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking I'd throw a hatnote at the top of the facial armour article to direct to Mengü (dab page), but I think moving Mengü to Mengu (disambiguation) and Mengu (Japanese facial armour) to Mengu would also be an acceptable solution. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 04:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd prefer the latter of the two options, given the fact that the subject of Mengu (Japanese facial armour) could then be listed as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Mengü/Mengu (disambiguation) ... provided that Mengu (Japanese facial armour) is moved to Mengu, and it could centralize the entire list of topics. Steel1943  (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, maybe not. Look at the new response on WP:RM/TR ... Steel1943  (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh, looks like your proposal solves all these issues neatly (including the concern raised by the IP at RM/TR). Centralizing it in that way resolves any Mengu/Mengü confusion, and we'll have one dab page to service both.  It works pretty well actually.  Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 04:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it did ... until the IP user commented on WP:RM/TR... Steel1943  (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But Mengu (redir) was just a redirect to the Mengü dab page, as an alternate spelling (without the diacritics). I don't think an old redirect to a dab page constitutes grounds for PRIMARY concerns. It's just a circular redirect if you follow it to its logical conclusion.  Besides, that was A YEAR AGO anyway. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 04:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on all that you stated above. There are no other articles in Wikipedia named "Mengu", so making Mengu (Japanese facial armour) the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is common sense. So, I'm not so certain why this is being disputed. I'll see what I can say on WP:RM/TR. Steel1943  (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helmet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Frame
Talk:Frame (beehive) is one week old today. It has been suggested that Hive frame might be better than Beehive frame. Your existing comments suggest you might support this - perhaps you would consider adding a revised 'support' vote?

Also, there is a similar proposal at Talk:Frame (nautical) which you might like to review. Thanks in anticipation. 188.29.25.115 (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Cross potent
Unfortunately, your comment in your recent edit summary is wrong -- look at my comment of 02:55, 29 December 2012 on Talk:Cross potent. AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, which part? You mean about potent=crutch?  If so, I didn't remove it, just asked for a cited source. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 16:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In your edit summary you wrote "potent=strong, not crutch". Unfortunately, that's wrong. AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I had never seen this before, but here it is at OxfordDictionaries.com: Potent-2 from "late Middle English (denoting a crutch): alteration of Old French potence 'crutch', from Latin potentia 'power' (in medieval Latin 'crutch')." Anyway, it needed a reference, and I see you have found one.  Thank you. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 01:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Carnival Cruise Lines
Hi. I notice you reverted my edit where I replaced the countires of Australia and England with the states/counties New South Wales and Kent with the edit summary clarity and consistency in an international context. I must point out that the other homeport locations are not in an international context e.g Baltimore, Maryland, Norfolk, Virginia, remember that readers outside of the U.S. will not necessarily know where or what these states are (I think a good case could be made for an internationally known state like California). If we're going to be consistent then we need to format as either city, state or city, country throughout the article, not an odd mixture of the two. Maybe city, state, country might be preferable. Zarcadia (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually revert, as the result of my edit was different from both your edit and what was before it. The "international context" I was referring to was the overall article, which is not to imply that a City, Country format must be adhered to throughout, but rather the normal convention most widely recognized internationally.  The convention of using City, State for U.S. cities and City, Country for those outside the U.S. is in common use, not just in that article and not just in Wikipedia.  It might have something to do with the fact that there are fifty states and over 18,000 localities (cities, towns, villages, etc.) in the United States, but it probably has more to do with the fact that, for instance, there are about a dozen cities and towns in the U.S. named Springfield, but each in a different state, but there is only one Melbourne in Australia, only one Leeds in the U.K., and only one Keflavik in Iceland.  We wouldn't use Springfield, United States because there is no article at that title and because the name is ambiguous.  Nearly any English speaker should know that Maryland, Virginia and Florida are U.S. states, even if they couldn't point to them on a map, but if they don't know, it's explained in the lead of those articles.  They are just as likely to not know that Kent is in England or that New South Wales is in Australia, so your argument against using U.S. states does not support your position for using sub-national designations in other countries (such as counties in England or states in Australia).  You may also notice that the articles for Dover, Venice, Barcelona and Sydney are at Dover, Venice, Barcelona and Sydney, not at Dover, Kent, Venice, Veneto, Barcelona, Catalonia and Sydney, New South Wales (although the articles for Tampa, Long Beach and San Diego are at Tampa, Florida, Long Beach, California and San Diego, California).  Please look over WP:NCPLACE for some guidance.  This is actually the guideline for naming articles for placenames, not how to format their mentions in article content, but common usage (as in article content) forms the principles upon which this guideline was built.  Inicidentally, WP:MOS lacks any helpful guidance on this particular topic.  Thank you for asking, and I hope I was able to more fully clarify my rationale. <span style="font-family:Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur, Old English Text MT;">Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 02:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The particle "de" in Walter Manny
Apologies for my rather curt edit summary. The ODNB has this man as 'Mauny [Manny], Sir Walter (c. 1310–1372)', which is an instance of a more English form being used in an important recent source.

There's certainly more to this than I said, but it's also more complicated than you say. In the Middle Ages, a great many people of England had locative names with "de" standing before them when writing in Latin or French (and of course most official documents were written in one or the other of those), but such names commonly dropped the "de" when writing or speaking in English. Indeed, sometimes the word "of" was used in English, as exemplified here by Thomas of Brotherton, 1st Earl of Norfolk.

William de Montacute, 2nd Earl of Salisbury, and John de Montacute, 1st Baron Montacute are not terribly impressive examples to quote in this discussion. The ODNB has the first of them as 'Montagu, William [William de Montacute], second earl of Salisbury (1328–1397)', and the second as 'Montagu [Montacute], John, third earl of Salisbury (c. 1350–1400)', without "de Montacute" being given as an alternative name.

Up to a point we need to live with the French and Latin forms of names, especially when they are the only ones known, but in my view the "de" can be over-egged and undoubtedly is being over-egged here in the English Wikipedia. Moonraker (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking to WP:COMMONNAME, the guidance here on en.WP says we should name articles according to the name most commonly used in English language reliable sources. Nearly all of the quality (English language) sources I have seen for the above named individuals use de, and none use of for these individuals.  More recently written sources may tend to drop the de more than early sources, but that would be a recent change.  Everything I have seen suggests that contemporary sources in Middle English used de and more recent Modern English sources have gradually started dropping the de (or occasionally replacing de with of).  I think it may still be a bit early to drop the de in en.WP, however, if sources using de continue to constitute a majority of reliable sources. <span style="font-family:Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur, Old English Text MT;">Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 04:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)