Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:40, 7 October 2009

Wilhelm's olde tome of arcane knowledge
Folio I (ante May 2009) Folio II (ante June 2009) Folio III (ante September 2009)

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 Misplaced Pages; GIVEN under my hand and the seal of Wikiproject Heraldry and Vexillology at Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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: 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)