User talk:Wilhelm meis/Archive 3

Ansfelden coat of arms image

Jezhotwells (talk) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

thanks, I'll have that with my coffee later on. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wyvern article

Thanks for vastly improving the Wyvern article! Jpaulm (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No sweat. I don't know if I would say vastly, but thanks! I do what I can. I think I'll take a break from it for a while, but if there is anything else I can do to help, just drop me a line here. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work with heraldry by country

Good, I think User:Grandiose may wish to join as well. Any way, shouldn't most of that stuff be at the page itself, therefore leaving the talk page for discussion? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing - a game I used to play had the coat of arms of Okinawa/Ryukyu as a blue/green snake head ona coloured background. What actually is it, and is it worth mentioning somewhere? I'm just curious. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what it is. I'll sure look into it though. I know what the coat of arms is for the SCA group on Okinawa, but that's not really Japanese heraldry, it's SCA heraldry. Honestly, I think I could write an article about SCA heraldry, and it is distinctive in its rules and style, but I'm not sure we need it just yet. As to the talk page, I don't know, I just thought we'd work with just the talk page. It's not that big a project. Once we get some of the requests knocked out of the way, it will become more discussion than anything, and then there won't be much need for anything but a talk page. At least we don't have to chase each other around on individual talk pages or wade through the sea of discussions on Talk:H&V. I'll go ahead and give Grandiose a heads up about the talk page. Thanks for the help, and the inspiration to make a group effort of it! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe he's signed up. I told him about it myself (since he shares my IP, etc.) Anyway thanks, it was just a curiosity, nothing more. Could have been a turtle head now I think of it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You can be sure that when I do find out, it's going in the Japanese heraldry article when I write it. It would certainly be considered notable anyway, in the context of Japanese heraldry. I see that Grandiose did sign up, and also already looked at Icelandic heraldry. I made a request for assistance on the WikiProject Iceland talk page. We'll see what turns up. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Danzig & the Power and Fury Orchestra

Hi! I left a comment regarding the merge you proposed here. Jafeluv (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Pursuivant barnstar

I had a fit of strange humour and have created a new version. I don't want to just overwrite yours, I'd like your input first:

To all to whom these Presents shall come or whom the same may in anyway concern, GREETING!

WHEREAS Wilhelm meis, Pursuivant of Wikiproject Heraldry and Vexillology, has represented to the project a history of outstanding contributions; AND WHEREAS a Warrant has been received from Roux of same project dated the 29 of June 2009 authorising the Project to grant an award of distinction to Wilhelm meis as Roux deems fitting and appropriate for the service of worthy effort on Swedish heraldry; NOW KNOW YOU that pursuant to the authority vested in Wikiproject Heraldry and Vexillology, I, Pursuivant of said project do by these Presents grant and assign to Wilhelm meis the following Arms: Gules a mullet Or pierced; All of which armorial bearings are more plainly depicted on the painting herewith provided and entered in the rolls to be borne and used for ever hereafter by Wilhelm meis according to the Law of Arms of Wikipedia; GIVEN under my hand and the seal of Wikiproject Heraldry and Vexillology at Wikipedia at 18:01 on this Monday the 29 day of June in the year of 2009; IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF I have witnessed this action with my signature. roux

//roux   21:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I love it! Can we make the template so it always does something like this, with the recipient's username subst'ed in? Thank you, by the way. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Things can only be substed in if the barnstar itself is substed; it could be included in the documentation that it must be substed to be used maybe? As it is, here's the syntax: {{User:Roux/wphvbarnstar|giver=name of giver|reason=reason why|sig=giver's signature of four tildes}} and you can see the source code at {{User:Roux/wphvbarnstar}}. Dates and such are automatic, though those too would need to be substed in so that the date doesn't keep changing. The recipient's username gets put in via {{BASEPAGENAME}}. → ROUX ₪ 17:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Systemic bias

I was asking for the community to find a definitive list. You've come up with one I completely agree with. Absolutely support. Can I just use this oppotunity to say how well your arguments come across, and it makes it so much nicer to discuss. Does Australia actually have a heraldic authority? I got the impression they could apply to the College of Arms. (I googled it, a lot of debate whether they should have one, but none that say they do, but I could be wrong.) - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes, that is my understanding of the Australian situation. Australia is still part of the Commonwealth, and to my knowledge, Canada is the only country still in the Commonwealth with its own heraldic authority independent of the College of Arms (Scotland and Ireland also have their own authorities, of course, not to split hairs over inclusion in the Commonwealth). I see now that I forgot New Zealand though (which, by the way, is also under authority of the College of Arms in London). South Africa, though no longer a member of the Commonwealth, also has its own heraldic authority. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I was thinking that perhaps you didn't need to list those under the College of Arms, but actually it's simpler to list them anyway. We'll see what Roux thinks. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better to simply provide a general guide rather than try to list anything. Whether it be worded as "where geographically/linguistically appropriate" or as those "in the Gallo-British tradition" or something such as that. If we are to list them all, we would need to take a look at Belgian heraldry (does it follow the French tradition?), Indian heraldry (British tradition?), etc. I don't want to get bogged down with list building, and I think it misses the point of a style guide. Let's just make a guide that editors can decide for themselves how to apply. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In an ideal world, yes. But if you think of the critics of such a restriction, they'd just ignore it - Evertype has expressed, I don't whether he still holds this, that translating German into A-N is appropriate. The second option's stricter and better, since I can't see how you'd argue that German was Gallo-British. I'm happy to go with that. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to ask: I want Anglo-Norman to be explained in the article text, so we don't have "The coat of arms of Brittany is Ermine" and no more. Do you share this view, and haven't mentioned it, or do you have a different opinion? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it that you mean rather than stating, "The coat of arms of Brittany is Ermine." and leaving it at that, you would prefer to have the article say, "The coat of arms of Brittany is Ermine (i.e. a white shield interspersed with stylised black tails)." I agree that this is ideal, as it avoids "dumbing down" the article by doing away with Blazon, but rather retains the blazon and explains it clearly and concisely. Rather than avoiding Blazon, and rather than losing the general reader with unexplained jargon, it helps the reader learn something about the immediate topic and learn something about blazonry along the way. I couldn't speak to what views other editors might hold regarding this situation. What about a more complex foreign coat of arms, though, like the arms of Kaiserin Maria Theresia? I know this particular example is moot, as we would surely name (not describe) the arms marshalled therein and leave it at that, but the issue of how to deal with a complex coat of arms is very relavant. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. I would also pefer "The coat of arms of Brittany is Ermine (i.e. a white shield interspersed with stylised black tails)." But I would also like to see "Meyler's coat of arms (granted in Irish [> Footnote Ar airgead sciathbharr uaine + reference] is Argent, in chief vert (i.e. a white shield with a green horizontal bar at the top).". But I don't see grounds for restricting (or trying to restrict) this formula to descriptions within the Gallo-British tradition. The Irish could easily be replaced with Russian or German with the same result (assuming the arms were 'argent, in chief vert') regardless of the syntax of the Russian or German blazon. -- Evertype·✆ 14:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not going debate now until the Weekend, just to say what I'd like to see so you two can think about it:

• "The coat of arms of Brittany is Ermine (i.e. a white shield interspersed with stylised black tails)." For those granted in Anglo-Norman.
• "Meyler's coat of arms (granted in Irish [> Footnote Ar airgead sciathbharr uaine + reference]) is Argent, in chief vert (i.e. a white shield with a green horizontal bar at the top).". For those in the Gallo-British tradition.
• "Lower Saxony's arms (granted in German{[quotation from original if not online; if online, optional] + ref}) show a white horse or "Sachenross" on a red field" for those that aren't Gallo-British.
• More generally, plain explainations, and not A-N blazons, to contain helpful wikilinks.
• Longer versions might omit the brackets from the English explainations and instead use an enitre paragraph - explaining why each bit is there (for example "Maria Theresia was a Hapsburg, showing the Spanish arms in the central top, themselves showing the unification of Castile-León and Aragón (left and right respectively)") Clear, explanatory, fitting. But no Anglo-Norman bar a couple of words ("impaled", "inescutcheon" for example might be relevant).

Those are my thoughts, but now my hand's clear, I'll say no more until after the short break. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I like this approach, Jarry. I think it does everything the reader needs and takes an approach that will help readers better understand blazonry in any language, if they choose to take the time to learn, and will also help them simply understand the CoA they are looking at if not. Evertype, the reason I like Anglo-Norman blazons for French and British (and by extension Commonwealth) heraldry and standard Modern English for others is that French heraldry uses a highly formalized style and vocabulary that lends itself to Anglo-Norman blazonry, while (for instance) Swedish heraldry does not. I think it would be more helpful for the reader to see I fält av guld en upprest svart grip med röd beväring, därest sådan skall komma till användning (In a field of gold an upright black griffin with red defenses, when it should be armed) than to follow the Swedish with "Or, a griffin segreant sable, armed and langued gules, when it should be armed." While the A-N blazon is subject appropriate, the former option is a bit more linguistically helpful. Again, I don't want to proscribe anything, only to make a suggestion of preference, and that is, after all, what a style guide should do. Not to ask you to agree to anything, Evertype, but do you understand my perspective on this? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, no? This keeps German and Swedish text inline, but pushes the Irish and French originals to a footnote? That's inconsistent. And the point is that this is an exercise in translation. It doesn't matter whether the Swedish is formal or the Irish is semi-formal, and what will you do when the blazon is in Hungarian and both formal and colloquial are opaque to you? Here's the point: both I fält av guld en upprest svart grip is no different from Ar ór gríobh chuthaigh dubh. The Anglo-Norman "Or, a griffin segreant sable" translates both of them 100%. Why be inconsistent? (By the way, i fält av guld isn't entirely colloquial; i en fält av guld with the indefinite article is I think what you would get in speech (but I speak Danish, not Swedish). -- Evertype·✆ 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not mean to imply that the use of footnotes would be lopsided. What I meant was that rather than what currently exists on Swedish heraldry, we would present the Modern English inline with the original Swedish text (and a link to the source) in a footnote. This, opposed to presenting the Anglo-Norman with explanation inline and the original Swedish text in a footnote. I wanted to show you that side-by-side comparison so you could see how the modern English much more closely reflects the language of the Swedish text. Either way, the original Swedish blazon is going into a footnote. My point above was that in the case of Swedish (as well as Danish, Norwegian, German, etc.) Anglo-Norman is a comparatively unwieldy translation. That is why I think a Modern English translation may be preferred over an Anglo-Norman translation outside of the area of Gallo-British influence. Either way, I certainly intend the presentation to be even-handed, whichever translation is used. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. Just to say a couple of things. (IMO.) Firstly, if they are granted in A-N, and you wish to use A-N, you should have a reliable source that says just that - there should be a ref in my first point above since otherwise there would be no source at all. Secondly, every mere modern English description should have a source, in the very least (we shouldn't advise any other way). I'm inclined to suggest an image would suffice at this basic level. However, I don't think images alone should go any further - not the "reliable source" in my first point. But I'm sticking by my points otherwise. On related subjects: the exception I was talking about earlier for single words - it's in the MoS - which we should respect. Easy just to link - the section is WP:MOS#Words as words. The other point is that we should mention that the first word in a in-line blazon should be capitilized. Might as well say it - one of those things where the majority look silly without, some work, but we should have a guideline that means it is consistent. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jarry, I think we are very close to agreement here. There should always be a source provided for a blazon, regardless of whether it is written out in Anglo-Norman, described in Modern English, or just commented about obliquely (e.g. "his arms were based upon the red eagle of Brandenburg"). I don't think an image alone ever suffices for a specific coat of arms (with exception for a hypothetical coat used for demonstration purposes) without a reference to a reliable source. I also agree that WP:MOS#Words as words is a very useful and appropriate link to include. I also have no problem with spelling out that the first word of a blazon should always be capitalized. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, I tried to explain elsewhere that parsing Swedish hjärtskjöld or German Herzschild or Hungarian szívpajzs as English heartshield is a calque, not a translation. They might help you learn Swedish or German or Hungarian. They're not a translation. The thing called hjärtskjöld or Herzschild or szívpajzs in those language is called an inescutcheon in English. Oxford defines that term as "An escutcheon of pretence, or other small escutcheon, charged on a larger escutcheon; in the case of a baronet, an escutcheon borne in chief and charged with the red hand of Ulster." It does not define the term as "heartshield". Indeed the word heartshield does not occur in the OED at all. It's not a word! By the same token, the Swedish språkvetenskap or German Sprachwissenschaft is NOT translated as "speechwittingship" in English, though it may be parsed that way. The English translation is linguistics. -- Evertype·✆ 11:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you say "Shield with an inescutcheon (literally "heart-shield")" or something like it? I know that's sort of one way Swedish > English, but still. That sort of ballpark? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I guess. I don't mind what kinds of paraphrases or explanations are given in parentheses. My point is that Herzschild doesn't mean "heartshield", any more than lársciath means "centreshield". Both mean "inescutcheon" for which there is no other word in English. For this reason I think that the right way to translate something in the language of blazon in one langue to the language of blazon of another language is to do right that. On the German Wikipedia they will not be trying to translate inescutcheon as "Innenschild", and they won't be translating Ar ór gríobh chuthaigh dhubh as "Auf Gold Wütens schwarzer Greif" any more than we ought to translate it as "On gold a black griffin of fury".

Where Roux had it wrong, it seems to me, is in thinking that the only use of Anglo-Norman was in a granted blazon, and that the use of Anglo-Norman implied that a blazon had been granted. But this is a mistaken view of how language works. Some speech acts carry with them power; others do not. I can say "I now pronounce you man and wife" or "I sentence you to ten years hard labour", and both of those sentences are perfectly correct. They have no power, not unless I have a certain kind of job and am sitting in a certain kind of situation. Similarly, we may have a grant of arms from Sweden, Ireland, or England which is a black griffin reared up with claws bared on a yellow shield. The original blazon for these may be I fält av guld en upprest svart grip and Ar ór gríobh chuthaigh dhubh and Or, a griffin segreant sable. The correct translation of the first two is Or, a griffin segreant sable, because one is going from the language of blazon to the language of blazon—regardless of how formal or informal the source language is, the target language (English) is formal. Otherwise you're not translating a blazon as blazon; you're translating blazon as though it were something else. The fact that a translation is into Anglo-Norman does not imply that that Anglo-Norman was crafted by a Herald in a formal grant. Roux seemed to believe that it did imply that, and I don't believe that's the case. So, translate Herzschild as inescutcheon and gloss it with (a small charged shield) if that makes sense (and if you don't have to gloss "charged" as well). -- Evertype·✆ 12:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you got such a strict interpretation, but although I have abandoned the argument elsewhere, I must insist that inescutcheon is not the only possible translation simply because it does not occur in the OED. To point out just a few of the holes in your logic, 1) dictionaries (including the OED) provide information about selected words from a language and do not in any way limit the vocabulary of a language (e.g. try and find blog in the OED); 2) I never said heartshield, I said heart shield, though you have consistently argued against heartshield - the difference is small, but it's there; 3) both heart and shield do appear in the OED, more to the point both are understood by nearly all English speakers, in fact heart and shield are probably understood by MANY more English speakers than inescutcheon; 4) the correct translation is not necessarily what is in the OED, but is what is understood by your audience (e.g. regardless of what may appear in the OED, the most correct translation of German handy is neither mobile phone in the US nor cell phone in the UK, but both translations are intelligible - and therefore correct - in both places.) Again, I have abandoned the argument on article talk pages because I don't really care either way about what wording is used as long as it is understood by the reader. I'm not sure I understand the need to still pursue the matter on my talk page. On an earlier point, you said this usage would help the reader learn Swedish, but I reiterate that this usage is intended to help the reader learn the terminology used in Swedish heraldry - not to learn the Swedish language. My goal in writing the Swedish heraldry article the way I have has always been to make it as universally intelligible as possible. I think getting caught up in correctness and forgetting about intelligibility is a wrong-headed approach. That said, I agree with your comment immediately above about the implications of Anglo-Norman, and I think there is a measure of validity to your claim that heraldic terminology should always be translated into Anglo-Norman for English usage (which is why I previously ceded the argument on heart shield). I simply have some reservations over which (Anglo-Norman or Modern English) translation is ideal in each case. Unfortunately you seem to be as deaf to my concerns on this as Roux was to yours. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

To translate and to parse are different things. A literal rendering of the elements gets you heartshield or heart shield (no difference to me in terms of this discussion). The point is that neither is an established synonym for inescutcheon. In terms of heraldry, to me heart shield might describe the shape of a shield, but it wouldn't imply a shield-shaped charge. And you can't translate lársciath as heart shield either, since lár doesn't mean 'heart', it means 'centre'.

1. OED has s.v. blog: = *WEBLOG n. 2. [1999 www.bradlands.com (weblog diary) 23 May, Cam points out lemonyellow.com and PeterMe decides the proper way to say ‘weblog’ is ‘wee'- blog’ (Tee-hee!).] 1999 P. MERHOLZ in peterme.com (weblog diary) 28 May, For those keeping score on blog commentary from outside the blog community. 1999 Scotsman (Nexis) 30 Aug., Many of the early 'blogs link to one another and have built quite a community of webloggersthe authors who maintain them. 2002 Salina Jrnl. 21 Apr. B6/3 Blogs..contain daily musings about news, dating, marriage, divorce, children, politics in the Middle East..or millions of other things or nothing at all.
2. There's really no difference between heart shield and heartshield in terms of my argument.
3. Yes, inescutcheon is a technical term, but so is most of the terminology. I think "heart shield" ought to be used as a parenthesized explanation only, with the word "literally" if necessary, but one would not like to give the impression that "heart shield" was a term in English heraldic language.
4. I don't know where you got "most correct" from... German Handy can be translated as mobile or mobile phone or cell phone or cell; all of those are translations—they are correct renderings into one or another dialect of English; neither is more correct than the other. But it would be incorrect to say that you could translate German Handy by English handy, wouldn't it? It certainly parses as handy. But that's not a translation.
5. Sorry, I thought we were picking this up again at the weekend.
6. In order to help people learn the terminology of heraldry in different languages, might it not be best for us to work together on a page of heraldic equivalents?
7. I think that we should distinguish "translations" from (plain text explanations). I think that's what some of the pages are doing already. If having both options is always considered a possibility, then the question of ideal may not arise.

I wonder if my sixth point above might not be the most helpful to us all in the longrun-- Evertype·✆ 14:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In which version of the OED did you find blog? Certainly not in the 1928 OED or the OED 2. In any case, I think you understand my point that no dictionary, even the OED, can possibly keep up with the language. Language, after all, is highly innovative while dictionaries, once printed, remain unchanged through the ages. In terms of parsing or calquing "Kvadrerad med hjärtsköld", if heart shield is a calque of hjärtsköld, Quarterly with an inescutcheon is also a calque of Kvadrerad med hjärtsköld, because while we use the words quarterly and inescutcheon in English heraldry, we don't have the specific phrase "Quarterly with an inescutcheon" in English heraldry. My point really is that, just like the case of German Handy, there is often more than one correct answer. Our focus should continue to be on making the articles as easily understood as possible. I don't mind discussing this with you, and I have no problem with continuing the discussion as long as it takes until we understand each other. I just thought the hjärtsköld matter had been put to bed last week. If we need more discussion about translating heraldic terms in general, by all means, let's have that discussion. I'm not quite sure what to do with your point #6. I don't know how we can accomplish this while avoiding WP:DICTIONARY. Or do I misunderstand your aims for this? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Points

The points I've raised above, in case you hadn't noticed, are now at WT:HV in simple form. Comments welcome, I'm sure. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 14:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Georgia

I just had a look at your user page and I'm wondering which Georgia you actually visited. I would guess it was Georgia State, but the flag in your Travels section is that of the Republic of Georgia. Just a nitpick. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good eye. Thanks for pointing that out, I am a little embarrassed to say I totally missed it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinion Requested

Wilhelm, it may be too late, but I'd certainly like to hear your opinion on a certain matter. I attempted to end the conflict on centrifugal force with a compromise introduction in exchange for dropping the pressure to put in a full section on planetary orbits. I had assumed from conversation with Dick that it might be OK. I put the section in. As usual, FyzixFighter deleted it. I tried to reason with him on the talk page. I got no reply. Then I discovered that he has just gone to the administator's incidents noticeboard and made an edit which indicates that he wants to get a topic ban imposed on me.

I can't really effectively edit on that page anyway. So what more does he want? Will he subsequently want a topic ban on every physics article that he follows me to? David Tombe (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been following the related discussions at ANI and various talk pages and user talk pages, and I see little purpose in making much commentary at this time. The only thing I really have to say about it is that it should be an exceedingly simple and easy task to make a summary-style article that does not delve into the finer points of any particular theory or approach, but simply and succinctly states all related concepts with a link to a more detailed article and a brief summary of that article's main points. Instead, the argument that page was created to settle has followed onto that page as well, where it has caused that page to suffer the same as its predecessor.

In short, it's just a summary article, guys. Keep it simple and stick to what is already well-established in the sources and on the branch articles. The real underlying problem here is that this article needs more editors and fewer armchair physicists. My apologies to any of the involved users who may actually be physicists, but I think you understand my meaning. Regardless of the outcome of ANI and other discussions, this article will never serve Wikipedia's readers until editors stop worrying about the physics of it and just stick to the sources. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, Thanks for your response. If you look at the last revert that FyzixFighter did at centrifugal force, I think you will see a summary of the topic that would be more than adequate. It is fully sourced, and it fully reflects the facts in a balanced manner. As regards the kangaroo court going on at ANI, we are witnessing alot of what is worst about wikipedia. The circus there amounts to a pillory that has been set up by editor Beeblebrox for the benefit of the opponents of Brews and I in the debate. It is similar to those mediaevil courts in which the angry villagers all came along to join in, not having the first clue about the facts surrounding the issue. David Tombe (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at these diffs, I see a significant difference in the overall quality of the article's readability and accessibility to the general reader. I attribute this difference to the ongoing arguments between the article's three principal editors over the physics of the article's subject with precious little regard for the accessibility of the article's content. I would not oppose a topic ban on all three editors, so that the job of editors can be done by editors and not by physicists (armchair or otherwise). I sincerely believe that Wikipedia would benefit from more expert intervention in many areas, but this is certainly one case of too many experts and not enough editors. Dispassionate objectivity is what has been lacking here, and I must say the blame is shared among all three, who have each contributed in their own way to the summary article's unraveling. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Beer Summit

Thanks for your revert without discussion, but I have an open question on the talk page located here that deserves an answer. Since you do not appear to have seen it, I will repeat it here for you: "Show me a statement from the White House supporting the use of the term to describe the event." You claim that we should use the term familiar to our readers, but the fact is, we use headings that accurately reflect the topic, not what the popular media uses to draw viewers. There is simply no such thing as a "Beer Summit", and neither the White House or Obama officially referred to the invitation to the White House or the meeting in that way. As an encyclopedia, we choose to best represent the topic with the most accurate and neutral terms, and "Beer Summit" isn't it. The fact is, the invitation and meeting was about mending race relations and opening dialogue. Beer had little, if anything to do with it. You are not doing our readers any favors by trying to muddy the waters. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Of all the discussion I see there, you seem to be the only one who has a problem with "Beer Summit". It is the name commonly used in sources, the name commonly searched by readers, and the name commonly used in sources about the event (i.e. mainstream news sources). Yes, this is an encyclopedia, but being an electronic encyclopedia, it has to deal reasonably with how to handle current/recent events, unlike other encyclopedias. Before you go about pointing fingers and talking about who is doing any favors for our readers, I'll remind you that this is a collaborative effort, and the rest of us don't have to get your approval before making an edit. There does appear to be consensus on the talk page, it just doesn't happen to agree with your position. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To a hammer like yourself, everything looks like a nail. I see you have mastered Deru kui wa utareru. "Beer Summit" does not accurately refer to either the "White House meeting" or "White House invitation". It refers to a sensationalistic, humorous, non-encyclopedic media portrayal of the private meeting between Gates, Crowley, Obama and Biden, and your repeated inclusion and support of the term has the effect of turning Wikipedia into The Onion. Congratulations. It simply isn't possible to set the bar any lower than this. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, do you even take yourself seriously? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Beer Summit" is a term invented and made popular by late-night television comedians like Letterman, O'Brien, Fallon, and Maher. Is that serious enough for you? Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care who first used the term, just what the common use of the term is. I'm sure Fallon would applaud your assertion that with two words on one page of Wikipedia I have single-handedly dragged the entire project to the level of The Onion. But I guess to a hammer like you, even I look like a nail. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, there are dozens of news articles like this from ABC and the Denver Business Journal that do not refer to the White House meeting as a "beer summit". You've simply chosen to focus on and support confirmation bias by ignoring all the sources that don't use the term. Most people don't have critical thinking skills so it is easy to mislead them. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And I am misleading people to - what - think that the mainstream media has termed this meeting the "Beer Summit"? It has! Just because you can find some reliable sources that avoid giving the event any specific name doesn't give you license to deny the other reliable sources that have. I'm not sure where this passion has come from over the use of the term "Beer Summit", but I wish I saw more of the same passion applied to providing sources for information added to WP articles. That was not intended to be pointed at you if it sounded like it. It's just that I seem to find unsourced assertions of fact on WP every day. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious, neutral mainstream, reliable sources refer to the event as a "White House meeting", a meeting that took place between Obama, Gates, and Crowley. There is no ambiguity in this term. It is direct, relevant and accurate. The term "Beer Summit" is not accurate or encyclopedic. None of the participants have referred to the event in this way. The term appears to have been used by a journalist associated with the Boston area, and it was picked-up by other media sources in a humorous fashion. The most neutral and accurate term for this event is the "White House meeting" which directly refers to a meeting between Obama, Gates, and Crowley in the context of the subsection. There is simply no such thing as a "Beer Summit" and we do not use humorous terms for serious subjects. It is fine to say that the popular media used the term "Beer Summit" to poke fun at the meeting, but we do not allow the media to choose terms for us unless they meet our strict standards for accuracy, neutrality, and relevance. Since there never was a "Beer Summit", we don't use the term. In fact, a "Beer Summit" refers to an annual event held by the Boston Beer Company. It does not refer to any official White House policy, meeting, or form of discourse, now or in the past. It's fun to play around with fictional titles, but this isn't The Onion. I'm sure you find it entertaining to use the term "Beer Summit" in the heading of a serious article, but simply because a journalist chose to use a sensational description for an event doesn't automatically make it the right one. You seem to think that lowering the bar on Wikipedia and pandering to sensationalism over accuracy is a good thing for Wikipedia. I'm here to remind you that it's not. You are walking down a slippery slope that will eventually lead to a diminishing set of standards for factual accuracy on Wikipedia. Perhaps that is your goal, I don't know. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[undent] I don't get any kicks out of the term "Beer Summit", personally. I just recognize that it is the de facto term applied to the event. I'm not sure where you are headed with the "slippery sloap" angle, but I'll remind you to take a look at who you are talking to before you take a posture of assuming bad faith. You seem to have assumed from the outset that I have had some sort of "happy prankster"-type motives for my edits. In fact, my edits have been to bring the article more in line with WP's standards, not to erode those standards. Perhaps it is time for you to take a few deep breaths before you proceed on this topic. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sensationalism is not a WP standard. It is, however, a problem with the major media, and the buck needs to stop here. Wikipedia isn't simply a mouthpiece of another sensationalistic media outlet. Try reading Wikipedia:Search engine test to see why all of your arguments supporting the use of this term are invalid. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't happen to see it as all that sensationalistic. I also don't have near the passion for the subject that you have, and I don't see the need to continue this discussion here. If you wish to discuss the topic further, please do so at Talk:Arrest of Henry Louis Gates#Beer Summit. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warrning and false allegations of vandalism

Recently, you edit warred your chosen headings of "Beer Summit", a sensationalistic, non-neutral, non-encyclopedic term, into the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates article.[1] In the process, you removed a more neutral heading, "White House invitation and meeting", and blanket reverted a formatted reference I had added. Then, you proceeded over to my talk page to accuse me of vandalism.[2] You may not understand that polling is not a substitute for discussion, and your arguments for changing the heading to "Beer Summit" are not supported by search engine test, nor do they best describe the subtopic. Please stop insisting that your version of the article is the correct one. And please, stop accusing other editors of vandalism when they fix your mistakes. If you can find a single, valid argument that supports your addition of the term "Beer Summit", please do so. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have done so, and you are trying to buck consensus. It's not "my version", I didn't put it there to begin with. It's the version everyone but you agrees on. What you have done amounts to vandalism, but you don't seem to have even the faintest clue that what you are doing is wrong, despite discussion and repeated warnings. By the way, look again and you will see I restored your other edit. It simply got kicked because you did it immediately before the offending edit and my add-on couldn't tell the difference. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, there was nothing remotely approaching "vandalism" about my edit(s) in any way, shape or form, so please read WP:VANDAL to see your error. Polls are not a good indicator of consensus, but rather give one the rough idea of who is active on the talk page and their positions on the issue. It's basically a political tool for getting a rough approximation of where people are on the issue. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, you are the edit warrior and spraying false accusations and erasing comments on your user page won't save you. I note that you erased not only what Wilhelm said and I said, but earlier warnings for the same actions. Manyanswer (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Manyanswer, I'm worried about you. Please calm down and try to get a hold of yourself. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice response. Do you deny edit warring as well as vandalism? I know you read the edit war policy because as usual you seem to have misconstrued a policy - in this case to mean that 3RR is the only way to edit war - and then defended yourself by saying you did 3 reversions in 30 hours, not in 24 hours. Loverrly. Manyanswer (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you still beating your wife? Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. Funny, I would have thought that one could just say "Yes I do deny edit warring". I didn't ask if you were "still" edit warring. But you are consistent in misreading guidance, policy, and in making accusations in response to anyone taking offence to your behaviour. Wilhelm, apologies for this all being here, I originally arrived only to back you from the baseless allegations against you. Everyone can go check out the three baseless allegations on my user talk page because I dared do so.[3] Manyanswer (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps English isn't your first language. Asking someone if they "deny" doing something is inferring that they "refuse to accept or believe" or "refuse to recognize or acknowledge" that they are still doing it. For the record, Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident is literally full of baseless allegations made by you; The latest is your blatantly false allegation that the article was protected because of the false 3RR report made against me, a report that was made after the page was protected. And the protection request was in reference to the mugshot edit war, not the "beer summit" modification. Please try to pay closer attention to the facts in the future. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility warning

Accusing good-faith editors of vandalism, as you did here [4], when there is simply a content dispute is a violation of WP:NPA. Don't do it again William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing here that says anything about accusations of vandalism. According to WP:Vandalism, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is, hence my assertion that his continued revertion against the clearly stated consensus is tantamount to vandalism. According to WP:Vandalism, it is. From where I'm sitting, your falsely accusing me of violating WP:NPA is the same as how you perceive my warning Viriditas against vandalism. I'm sure the irony doesn't escape you. Have a pleasant day, and I sincerely wish you luck if you wish to wade further into this issue. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message here. I agree that your warning was made in good faith. I disagree with you about whether improperly calling edits vandalism is a personal attack: in my opinion it is, because it's tantamount to saying that the other person is intentionally doing wrong (or at least intentionally harming the encyclopedia). I doubt WMC and I are the only ones with that opinion, though there may be many who agree with you too.

Warnings are useful even for good-faith actions. We encourage editors to be bold. If they do something wrong, it's not a big deal; on a wiki, it can be easily fixed. However, the first time they make the mistake, they get a warning. Then they know, and after that they are expected to do it right. So we hope people don't feel too bad about the warnings: that they see them as constructive criticism. Doing something the wrong way the first time just means you're learning the ropes.

By the way, I was going to give you some advice. I'm not sure whether you had already reported the problem somewhere. If the problem recurs you can try reporting them at WP:AN3 (maybe that's what you did the first time?) which might result in page protection, or blocking. You could alternatively try WP:ANI (not sure if it would be appropriate there) or things listed at WP:DR. When reporting it, I suggest making a short, concise report (as short as one-line possibly?) with a prominent link to that poll if relevant. However, it wasn't just about the poll: there was also editwarring over the mugshot, along with an allegation that BLP applies to that, so it's not that simple. While the article is protected you can still make progress by discussing and getting consensus on the talk page and requesting edits by {{editprotected}}.

Anybody who reverts against that poll is clearly going against consensus and that isn't allowed. However, it isn't always easy to get enforcement.

I believe it was Tedder who protected the page. You could try asking them to unprotect it. You could try asking Viriditas to agree not to revert at least for the length of time the page protection would have been in place; if you get that agreement, it may be easier to get the page unprotected. You can also ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP but I'm not sure if that's appropriate unless Tedder is away for a substantial period of time and can't be reached.

The fact that there was a poll, by the way, makes it quite clear that this involves a content dispute, not vandalism.

(Link to page for convenience: Henry Louis Gates arrest incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for that. I am somewhat busy off-wiki today, but I will try to follow up with this better by this evening. I would like to make one comment for now though. The way I read WP:NPA is that editors are expected to voice their disagreement with the edit without making ad hominem attacks against the editor. I don't see identifying an edit as vandalism as an ad hominem attack. Even if it calls into question the recipient's motives behing the edit, I still don't see it as an attack on the person. Good people have misguided and ill-conceived notions every day, even some that amount to bad acts. I only see vandalism warnings as warnings against bad acts, not necessarily bad actors. But if there is a community out there who sees it that way, I will take that under advisement. I might further suggest that if this is deemed to be the case, a mention might be added to WP:VANDAL and/or WP:NPA as appropriate. Have a pleasant day. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re I don't see identifying an edit as vandalism as an ad hominem attack I'm afraid you're wrong. Vandalism is something done by vandals. Even if it calls into question the recipient's motives behing the edit - exactly. It does. Call it wrong; call it ill-advised; but not vandalism. To take an extreme example, I could just about justify this edit [5] as not vandalism because of the playful intent behind it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But if calling an edit "vandalism" = calling the editor a vandal = personal attack, wouldn't calling an edit "edit warring" also = calling the editor an edit warrior = personal attack, or calling an edit link spamming = calling the editor a spammer = personal attack. I don't follow that logic. I see a difference between calling an editor out on an edit they (ought to) know to be wrong, and making a personal attack against the editor. I never said 'you are a vandal' or 'you can't make a proper edit', I said 'this is an improper edit... it is an act of vandalism'. I see a clear distinction there. If you do not, I respect your opinion, but I hope you can also respect my opinion that there is a difference between disputing the edit and attacking the editor. As I said earlier to Coppertwig, if there is anything near a consensus that a vandalism warning is, in itself, a personal attack, I will take it under advisement. I would not want someone to receive my message as a personal attack where no such attack was intended. Then again, if a vandalism warning is in itself a personal attack, why do we have them? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wilhelm meis/Sandbox2

I made some changes. Feel free to alter them as you see fit. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I will feel free to edit my own user subpages as I see fit, with your permission. Thank you for having the decency to let me know. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, lighten up. Clearly, I was joking. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The humor was not lost on me. Just batting it right back. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed move of a Eric III of Denmark :)

Imitation is supposed to be the sincerest form of flattery, so I am of course pleased that you followed my example and moved a long dead king to the place where you believe he belongs. I guess I have forfeited the right to complain about this, yet I feel compelled to suggest that we belay the renaming until the illusive consensus has been obtained. We should probably also find a "unified talk page" on which to discuss this. Don't fancy running myself ragged between seven separate talk pages — and we haven't even started on the Valdemars yet :) Favonian (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to a unified talk page. Just let me know where. BTW, my move was not quite the same. I was moving according to WP naming conventions, not for convenience of consistency. Consistency is a weak argument for page moves. Common Name usually prevails. At any rate, I'd be more than happy to address these together and hash it out before dashing out a lot of moves. I just don't think we should get caught up in too much of the "look at where that other page is" justifications for oddball article names. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the discussion is picking up steam over at Talk:Eric VII of Denmark, so why don't we keep it there? Could I persuade you to insert the appropriate pointers in the rename discussion sections, which you created? Thanks in advance. Favonian (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks. And it's also good to see editors who have good taste in good things such as Opera (web browser) and Opeth. --Afghana ^[talk] 06:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact I'm using Opera now. Something's gone funny with my Firefox, and now it pegs out my resources to 100% every time I open it. I'll have to get that fixed at some point. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have something to do with the .NET framework add-on. With it disabled, my resource meter settled down, I upgraded from Firefox 3.0 to 3.5, and everything is running beautifully. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with edit warring

Hey there... I've had to do some lessons learned to keep myself sane, and hopefully you find them useful too. I put them on my talk page. I prefer to have any discussion there focused on the abstract suggestion of how to deal with these issues in general rather than any specific incident or user. Manyanswer (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lead section

You recently changed

The Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy refers to an event that began on July 16, 2009, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home for disorderly conduct.

to

The arrest of Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. on July 16, 2009, at his Cambridge, Massachusetts home for disorderly conduct initiated a controversial series of events.

Really? So, what you are saying is that the arrest itself was not controversial? Interesting whitewash there. Failure to write with NPOV and intentional introduction of misleading ambiguity taking attention off the controversial nature of very arrest itself, noted. Which is more neutral? Saying that the controversy began with the arrest (implying the controversial nature of the events following it and including all of them) or saying that the series of events following the arrest were controversial, implying the arrest was not controversial?

You also conveniently gloss over the arrest for disorderly conduct which sparked the original controversy, by casually mentioning it in passing in the middle of a sentence. I much prefer to inform and introduce the reader in the very beginning to 1) what the title and topic refer to (The Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy refers to an event) 2) when and where it takes place, (that began on July 16, 2009, in Cambridge, Massachusetts) and 3) what happened (where Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home for disorderly conduct) Your version muddles the issue and works backwards and forwards, informing the reader of only some of what happened, followed by when and where, and then coming back to fill the reader in on the details of what happened again, concluding with what you call a "controversial series of events" which appears remotely distant from the incident itself and speaking in ambiguities that aren't specific or clear. The "controversial series of events" are encapsulated in the lead section; Informing the reader that the event "initiated a controversial series of events" isn't necessary because the event itself is controversial, and everything after the event is connected to the controversy. I think it is much more important to strive for clarity based on the facts rather than trying to make the facts fit your model of the controversy. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was saying that the arrest itself was the beginning of a series of controversial events. It may not have been the best way it could possibly have been phrased, but once again you seem to have been eager to pounce on me with your assumptions of bad faith. If you can't be civil, please just refrain from jumping in. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And according to your latest version, it was not the arrest, but the controversy that initiated the ensuing events. So you seem to want to take the spotlight off the arrest and put it on the controversy itself. Whatever. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Is NPOV really a complex concept? This edit is not neutral. Instead of asserting facts about opinions, you are asserting opinions about facts and you are changing the scope of the article. It is neutral to say that there is a "controversy over the arrest", as that is what the entire article is about. But for some reason that I cannot understand, you changed this to the assertion of a "controversial arrest" instead. Clearly, Obama's comments were considered controversial, as was the White House meeting over beers, so "controversial arrest" isn't accurate as a broad description, but "controversy over the arrest" is. And what purpose does saying the event "unfolded under the national news media spotlight" serve when the end of the paragraph already says that "the arrest generated a national debate about racial profiling in the United States"? Your recent change of wording also makes the sentence more difficult to read. Which of these statements is neutral, accurate, clear, and to the point:

The controversy over the arrest of Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. initiated a series of events, beginning on July 16, 2009, when Gates was arrested at his Cambridge, Massachusetts home and charged with disorderly conduct.

or

The controversial arrest of Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. at his Cambridge, Massachusetts home on July 16, 2009 on charges of disorderly conduct initiated a series of events that unfolded under the national news media spotlight.

You are changing a clear and direct statement that describes the controversy and confusing the issue. Why? Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Write it however you like. I wasn't looking to pick a fight. Just do whatever you want with it. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of writing it however I like, why not listen to at least some of what I am saying and change the wording with clarity in mind? One way to do this is to use shorter sentences and to consolidate duplicate material. Surely you can change what you have written in response to my concerns? There's also the issue of the opinion polls and opinions of legal experts which have not yet been expanded in the body or represented in the lead. There's a lot to do here, so I'm wondering why you are fighting with me over a single sentence in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why I'm fighting with you over the sentence? All I did was get rid of the bold text repeating the descriptive title of the article, then you came here to complain about some notion of implied POV in my phrasing. You, sir, have been fighting with me over this sentence. So if you see so many other things in this article that need improvement, this begs the question, why have you chosen to focus on this sentence. Of course I would never be so uncivil as to suggest that it could have anything to do with the fact that it is the sentence I changed. Anyway, if you look again, you may find that this is all moot at this point anyway. I don't know who the anon editor was, but I assure you it was not me. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 07:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I have explained several times above (and in many different ways) why the first sentence doesn't work, and I don't understand why you continue to ignore my concerns. As for the blanket reversion by the anon, why would you think that I would even consider you a suspect? As far as I can tell, the anon account is interested in Katja_Kassin, a German pornographic actress, and their account is linked to recent problems with IP's on that article. Beyond that, I can't speculate. Actually, that's not entirely true. After looking at the article on Kassin, I'm now wondering how Kassin won the award for "Best Orgasmic Analist" and what exactly that entails. Viriditas (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I shudder to think. Is there really such an award? Nevermind, I don't care to know. As regards the first sentence of the Gates arrest article, how about if we discuss that on the article's talk page? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 08:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I like this edit. I would agree that you have improved the first paragraph's readability. I'm happy with it if you are. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 08:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please improve it to your personal preference. I may have added too little or too much in the process. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)