User talk:Wilhelm meis/Archive 4

Seal (emblem)

Ok, I was unaware of that discussion, and as my move summary said, based my move on the recent Cfd discussion. I still remain of the view that "emblem" is an unacceptably poor disambiguator - seals often show emblems, but are not emblems themselves, and very many seals do not show emblems at all. I think it might be better to take it back to WP:MOVE. Now I read the discussion on the talk page, I was interested to see that you also came up with what I think is my preferred name: Seal (authentification), which was later supported by Timurite. This is the only term I can see that covers adequately all seals, and both the impression and the device. Modern company and legal seals, Chinese "chop" seals and historical Jewish and Egyptian seals are among the many types of seals that normally just use inscriptions (ie text). I think the discussion concentrated way too much on heraldry, a very localized aspect of the matter in my view. Somewhat by coincidence, I have just been working on Engraved gem, the major expression of the seal as an art form in the Western tradition, from the 14th century BC to the 19th century AD. Few of their very varied designs can really be called emblems. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I do respect your opinion, and I am sorry you weren't a part of the earlier discussion. It's not that I have a problem with the name you moved it to, but just that there was a recent discussion after a previous undiscussed move. This article was stable at seal (device) for a long time, and then it has been batted about quite a bit just this summer. I just think more discussion and less WP:BOLDness would make the article more stable and ultimately would better serve our readers. I certainly don't mean to suppress any further discussion, though. By all means, please do suggest any possible improvements to the title on the article's talk page. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As I say, I think I will take it back to WP:MOVE. With 2 recent discussions with different results, I think this is justified. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure when I will get round to this, so I've moved it back in the meantime. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate that you wrote to me. Thank you, that was very welcome. I think the article is a mess, and clearly I'm not the only one who thinks so, especially as it was pretty quickly decided to protect it from further edits. It will settle down, and I have faith that ultimately any problems will be fixed. At the moment everyone is excited about him being held, and when the dust settles the article won't be such a hot topic. It'll take time. Your opinion doesn't sit well with some people, and I think it's natural to expect that Polanski would arouse a lot of emotion in people and it's not always easy to filter that from talk page discussion or from article edits. That doesn't mean people should ignore your opinions just because they disagree with them. In any case, there are editors who agree with your comments and the dust will settle sooner or later. It will be interesting to see if the one week of protection will be long enough for people to cool down. cheers Rossrs (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt a week will be near enough. It all depends on how the 24-hour news cycle shifts. If Iran continues on its current path at an accelerated pace, we might expect the whole Polanski issue to blow over quickly. If nothing happens other than Palin's continued overseas rants and the perpetuation of the US healthcare quagmire, this may go on for a long, long time. I had little to no interest in this article beyond adherence to BLP policy to begin with, and I really have no interest whatsoever beyond BLP policy at this point, and I could honestly care less if anyone disagrees. Policy is policy. There is no room for compromise with BLP policy, and there is no requirement for consensus. But the Urbans and IPs will eventually move on to the next Fox News talking point. Policy and Neutrality will endure. I honestly hope WMF is not opened up to risk of litigation on account of a few hotheads, but then again, I suppose that as long as a plausible case can be made that is was just a few hotheads, the risk is minimal. I just have to wonder, BLP being of such paramount importance, why it is so poorly understood by so many editors. One day, an editor comes to BLPN claiming that the AfD:Notability tag itself constitutes WP:HARM to a BLP article, and the next, editors are allowed to run amok on the talk page of a BLP involving a child rape without any regard whatsoever for BLP policy (or for the victim). If Urban persists in edit warring BLP information into the article, I will report him so he can learn from the experience of being blocked the importance of not thumbing one's nose at BLP policy. I just don't get where this sense of absolute impunity comes from. WP is not an anarchy. /venting. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I. Like you, I don't have a particular interest in the Roman Polanski article. I am very interested in the Sharon Tate article, and I can quote from Polanski's biography because I bought it when I was working on the Tate article and I'm only interested in him as far as he relates to her. I have him on my watchlist for that reason. At the beginning I did not intend or expect to comment but when I saw that the discussion was being dominated by one editor who seemed to be shouting down everyone who disagreed, and when I noticed that BLP was being mentioned all over the place by people who clearly did not understand it, I then decided to comment. I'm interested in seeing that the article does not become a platform for people to espouse their viewpoints under the guise of Wikipedia. There are blogs for people to unburden themselves, but that's not our aim. A week may not be enough time, but whether it's a week, a month or a year, in time the "drive-by" editors will have lost interest. I've seen it happen before. Rossrs (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR Complaint Opened

A complaint regarding your edit warring and refactoring has been opened here:[1] My previous edit on this page, was as you are well aware, not Vandalism. 99.142.15.209 (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 22:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your graciousness

Sorry I couldn't be of any help with Polanski. Oberon Fitch 01:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

I sincerely hope this will not be the end of your contributions to the project. I don't know if I necessarily agreed with all your edits, but I do think your work as a whole is appreciated, and there is still a lot of work to be done on WP that has nothing to do with any of this. If this is the end of your contributions here, then I wish you the best of luck in whatever you do. If you come back to the project, I would be glad to help you however I can. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, done with WP. But, thanks for the offer. Don't feel appreciated, but rather severely trampled. My only concern was that the article be respectful and perhaps lean towards professional. "Oh no! Don't do that! etc. is horrifyingly disgusting in an encyclopedia, not just because they are the words of a 13 year old delivered in court (not properly attributed), but because they read like Dick and Jane and we should be able to state the scenario, using factual reference, WP:this and that, into material that is appropriate to reference. If you are going to transcribe court testimony, then you do it as a transcription, with the captioning, and you do not intersperse it with the 2003 HSB interview. I have kids in college. I told them after a couple of days of editing never to use WP for anything other than math references. Apparently, to my surprise, they already knew that.

If the editors can't be respectful towards one another, there is little likelihood in accomplishing a respectful tone. I made a sincere effort to not be condescending, obnoxious, or stupid. (While following links to various and sundry WP articles on how this is to be done, and learning on rather a steep curve.) I think I've gotten most of my contributions out, which were the cause of so much hand wringing, including a couple of minor edits to other articles. This has left me rather depressed that so much effort was needlessly wasted. Best to you, WH. Oberon Fitch 02:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Yes, unfortunately, I still feel that the best purpose WP serves at this point is giving the reader a starting point to find other, better sources on almost any topic. That's why I think references to reliable sources are so important. That, and because of issues like this one, where a living person's reputation is at stake. I do think our BLP policy is important and should have a better mechanism of enforcement, so that the policy is applied evenly across the project. Still, WP is the greatest undertaking in a work of reference since the OED. But any time something is made open to everyone, this is what you get. At least I can say I have given an honest effort to trying to help improve the quality of the product. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I guess there is a small glimmer of hope there, in that the most prolific contributor to the OED was a madman and murderer. (Which somehow fits the occasion.) Of course, I love the OED, but the Pocket OED is my favorite, edited by Fowler, reads like poetry. I need a new copy, but I have only found copies in England.Oberon Fitch 02:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Oh, yes. The irony is one of the OED's great delights. I am a bit of a bibliophile. I haven't seen the Fowler edition, but I'll have to look for it. Thanks for the tip. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 03:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Noticed that you are enjoying the company of the Pope again. Sorry to have deleted the various posts, as they might have been useful to adequately describe how he shouts down, insults, and describes others as supporting pedophilia, etc. Good luck with that. A three month block would be well deserved imo, as he is the primary reason I left.Oberon Fitch 18:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Well, again, I do hope you will come back and make some contributions (perhaps to some of the less controversial articles, like Swedish heraldry or tafl games) after you have had a chance to clear your head. You have only experienced one of the darker sides of WP on the RP article. There are lots of other articles on fascinating subjects, like hákarl and canting arms, that still need a lot of help. But take your time, get some rest. These articles aren't going anywhere. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Friend, would you kindly fix the one thing in that damnable article that is without contention, and that is that it was Vogue Hommes? That would make my day. (99's comments notwithstanding that there is no proof of his having a contract with anyone for pictures, as long is says it is Vogue, perhaps the men's edition would at least make sense? Aside from the fact that sources say it was, etc.). I guess I'll stomp around and look for the cite again. I don't know anything about canting arms, etc. Is there any need for editing in the article on the trebouchet? I assume there is one. Planning to build one in the very near future. Watch for you tube video. ha.Oberon Fitch 23:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/how-polanskis-probation-officer-saw-his-crime/#more-41499 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that sounds like fun! I'd love to build a trebuchet, but it will have to wait until I get back to the States, where lumber is comparatively plentiful and cheap (I said comparatively!). If you get video, e-mail me the link (just come here and click "E-mail this user" in the toolbox to the left). Anyway, I'll look into the Vogue thing, but most of my edits seem to be getting summarily reverted at this point. I can't say this would be any different. Since it's not particularly contentious either way, it may be best to let things die down a little first. Tip: a hinged (bucket style) counterweight and a rolling base makes the throwing arm drop faster and throw farther. Good luck ;-D Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 01:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the difficulty lies in selecting the object to be launched. A defunct microwave? Frost covered pumpkins? The computer? So many good choices, all vying for first. Oberon Fitch 19:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Okay, so I was wrong. Polanski isn't going to settle down. :0Oberon Fitch 04:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Fox News delete?

What makes that particular source not reliable? it was published by part of the largest single media organization on earth WookMuff (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it reliable. Even ignoring reports like this, the "Celebrity Gossip" column doesn't even sound like a reliable source, does it? After all, celebrity gossip is what WP:BLP is intended to prevent. Similarly, an op/ed piece in even the least controversial news source is not considered reliable of anything other than the opinion of the piece's author. This reference also does not, in itself, add anything to the article not supported by another referenced source, or did I miss something? If it doesn't need to be there, then there's no reason to keep it in. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 01:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Bachmann

Hi Wilhelm, I have left a comment on the discussion page in regards to the Bachmann article. Thanks for initiating a civil resolution to the potential dispute. Trilemma (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly a significant potential for controversy over the Bachmann article, especially if big changes are made (as I sense they will be before long), and I think we all need to procede cautiously to avoid inciting unconstructive argument. There is definitely a lot of room for improvement to the article, and I look forward to working with you and the other editors there to get it done with as little bickering as possible. I just hope everyone there (and this is not in any way pointed at you) can remember that NPOV is according to a broader consensus, not according to their own personal opinions. If something is not particularly flattering to Mrs. Bachmann but is neutral and well-sourced, it should stay (WP:WELLKNOWN), but anything that promotes a non-neutral POV one way or the other should go, or at least be presented neutrally and factually. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Possessive Charles's?

Noticed you changed the possessives at Charles VIII of Sweden on Charles's name to Charles'. To me, that does not look correct. I am used to Lars's and Bess's and jazz's etc. Aren't you? Have I missed something developing on that is the last few years? SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is apparently some room for flexibility on that one, but I was taught the convention of dropping the s after possessives that end in s, though not after those that end in x or ss (i.e. Charles' crown, Mrs. Jones' house, in Jesus' name, but also Rex's dog, the boss's car, etc.). I never knew it to be preferred otherwise, until today. I wonder if it's a British/European vs. American thing. I learned this convention in American schools. Where did you learn it the other way? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I learned it in grade school in the Midwest, U.S.ofA.. As far as I know the form you are referring to is used for plural, never singular. The ruckus's source was the bees' hive. Could that be what you actually have in mind? I think the apostrophe is optional in singular, as you say, in Swedish, but not in English that I know of. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a look through WP:PUNCT and related places, and the most useful information I found on WP was at WP:MOS#Possessives. There, I found three methods of dealing with possessive singular nouns ending with a single s. The second convention detailed there was the way I was taught, apparently the first was the way you were taught, and WP deems both methods acceptable, so long as it is used consistently within an article. So, again, use whatever method you are comfortable with, and I apologize if my edit was confusing. I don't think I would be the person to say what method is superior, I was just using the method I know. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 00:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! You are very thorough. I am impressed by that too, and now well informed. It looks like consistency within the article is the only rule not to break with this grammar. I think Charles's article has that now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fancy copyedit?

You once volunteered to copyedit for WikiProject Sweden.  :)

In case you are still interested, there is an article Swedish literature that was delisted GA because of, among other things, bad prose.

You are under no obligation to do anything, I am only letting you know of the possibility in case you are bored...

Fred-J 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look over it. Maybe I can help improve some areas. I'm a little busy off-wiki these days, so I haven't been doing much on WP, but I would be delighted to contribute to the Sweden project again. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

unreferenced BLP bot

Hey there

I wanted your input on a bot that you requested (and i scripted)

see discussion here Tim1357 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Centrifugal force again

Wilhelm, do you have an opinion about Talk:Centrifugal force#Re-merging? Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:1974 Iceland 1100 year coin (reverse).jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:1974 Iceland 1100 year coin (reverse).jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)