Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:38, 21 May 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Wilhelm meis, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Inge 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Eric of Pomerania

Thank you, Wilhelm Meis, for reverting to my earlier version concerning the dexter base of Eric's union arms. But why have you deleted my comment regarding the three crowns dexter chief? They were of course the newer Swedish arms, probably introduced already during the reign of king Magnus VII Eriksson of Sweden and Norway, king also of Scania 1332-1360. However, they were a symbol of the Kalmar Union as well, and used as such in the sigillum ad causas of Margaret, possibly also by Eric of Pomerania. See the seal depicted in the article on the Kalmar Union. Since Sweden is already represented in Eric's union arms by the Folkung lion, the three crowns might in this context rather be interpreted as an allusion to the Union.

One other thing: You have also reverted to an earlier version proclaiming Margaret as queen of Denmark. She was in fact never queen of Denmark, although her title is sometimes given as "queen regnant" in English translations. The Danish article on Margaret states unequivocally: "Margrete har aldrig været dronning af Danmark, da en kvinde kun kunne være "fuldmægtig frue og husbonde og Danmarks riges formynder". Ihvertfald indtil sønnen, hendes mindreårige søn Oluf, kunne blive konge. Så mens Oluf var mindreårig, var hun hans formynder og regerede på hans vegne. Da Oluf døde i 1387, valgte Rigsrådet Margrete til regent...". But she was definitely queen of Norway from her marriage in 1363 to king Håkon VI Magnusson until his death in 1380. And she was even queen of Sweden for two years, until Håkon was deposed from the Swedish throne i 1362. But never queen of Denmark. I trust that you will agree to the reversion that I am about to do. Roede (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Erik av Pommern, Tre Kronor, Margrete

Regarding the use of the three crowns, I maintain that there is compelling evidence to suggest that the three crowns originated as a Swedish symbol, possibly representing the triple reign of Albrecht, predating the Kalmar Union, but I do concede that there is some controversy regarding whether its use in Erik's seal is representative of Sweden or of the Kalmar Union. Regarding Margrete, I have found encyclopedic sources online and in print that agree that Margrete was elected sovereign ruler of Sweden by the Riksdag in 1388, but ruled Denmark (from 1375) and Norway (from 1388) only as Regent. Therefor, I contend that if it is erroneous to call her Margaret of Denmark, it is also erroneous to call her Margaret of Norway. It may be most correct to call her Margaret of Sweden, although she is widely called (in English) "Margaret, Queen of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden". If we are to stay in keeping with common usage, perhaps we should amend the page to say "Margaret, Queen of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden". Wilhelm meis (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again: She became queen of Norway upon her marriage in 1363 to king Håkon VI Magnusson. And queen of Sweden as well, until Håkon was deposed - but she may still have claimed that title, as Håkon never gave up his claim to the throne of Sweden. In 1371, he unsuccessfully invaded Sweden to regain his eastern kingdom. After his death in 1380, Margrete would still be queen dowager of Norway. Her only uncontested royal title is queen of Norway, and we should stick to that in the context we are discussing. Another matter is that she is commonly referred to as "Queen Margaret/Margrete/Margreta" by modern historians in Scandinavia and elsewhere, as you quite correctly maintain. And posthumously she was officially recognized as queen of Denmark when the present queen assumed the name of Margrete II. Still. for the sake of consistency, we should not contradict the English Misplaced Pages article, which begins thus: "Margaret Valdemarsdatter (Norwegian: Margrete Valdemarsdotter) (1353 - October 28, 1412) was Queen of Norway, Regent of Denmark and Sweden, and founder of the Kalmar Union which joined the Scandinavian countries for over a century." Roede (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Tafl games

I replied to your message on my talk page, but for future comments I will put them on the article's talk page. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have put out some requests for feedback on the Tafl games article, and I would appreciate any useful feedback from all users. For reference, here is the article as it was before I started working on it in December. Wilhelm meis (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is looking good! The lead reads well, though I'll massage it a little to some of my style preferences, noting why as I go. I don't want to change your prose too much, I like the concise energy of it. Great sourced, objective informative text, appropriately illustrated. This is very close to GA already, perhaps expansion is possible and the FA process appropriate. Copy edit and more feedback to come. Thank you for this article! Alastair Haines (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good news, I'm glad to see I've done some good with it. Thanks for the feedback. Wilhelm meis (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've recieved your message and will review it over the next couple of days. Initial thoughts are good, but I'll need to set some time aside to go over the detail. Hope this helps!--Gazimoff (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an interesting page with pictures of extant gaming pieces here. Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelm! Yes, I will get back to this article, and review for GA. Please allow me about 24 hours from the time of this note. If I have not kept my promise at that time, remind me! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah! A man who knows about heraldry. I dabbled briefly, only long enough to learn coticed, supporters, bezant and a few terms and ideas. Are there significant variations across Europe, or design is similar throughout? Alastair Haines (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:FilipeS has excellent English that he only rates as "3", but contributes quality text (imo) here at English Wiki. He rates his French at "2", but if it is only half as good as his English, he could probably still help you very well indeed.

I've heard about the Society for Creative Anachronism, sounds fun as well as valuable for research of various kinds. Austrian eagles were everywhere in the Napoleonic era, I've noticed that. The first French Empire adopted the eagle also, probably to avoid the Bourbon lion. Yes, British and French lions are everywhere aren't they. I've noticed cross motifs in Scandinavian shields (and flags of course). Italians seem to have abandoned wolves though! As an Australian, I'm a little curious about any popular themes in commonwealth countries -- Canada, New Zealand and Australia. In Australia, natural flora and fauna feature prominently as supporters, crests and devices on arms issued by the Royal College. Then, Australian arms love the Southern Cross of stars also.

Best wishes with trictrac, I love backgammon. The computer keeps beating me at Hefntafl, but I'll work out how to play eventually. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes! I see. Australian coat of arms is covered, but not other heraldry, which exists quite widely because QEII is still Queen of Australia, as she is of Canada. I'm not up to adding this myself, but there will certainly be others down here who are. Thanks for the though Wilhelm. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I wouldn't mind trying to help you, but right now I don't have much free time, and I'm not that knowledgeable with French that I'd feel comfortable translating a whole article! I think that would be quite an undertaking even if the article were written in my native language. But I'll take a look at it when I have more time available. Regards. FilipeS (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

About Megadeth subtitles...

Since you agree "The Punishment Due" is the subtitle in "Holy Wars... T(t)he Punishment Due", due you believe that "A Call to Arms" is the subtitle in "Never Walk Alone... A(a) Call to Arms"? There's no obvious indication of it in the article, but it seems that way to me. -Xnux the Echidna 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

SCA logo

Hi Wilhelm. Actually, all you need is the non-free logo license template and the fair use rationale that accompanies it. When you're filling in the fair use rationale template, some of the parameters automatically populate if you leave them blank. It's often a good idea to allow this on logos, as the info contained therein is pretty good (for example, the "portion used"). The logo you found online should be fine, and lesser resolution images are actually mandatory (high-res images can potentially have commercial value, a fair use image should theoretically NOT compete with a company's ability to market it in some way). Hope this helps. Once you upload, license and include your rationale, let me know. I'll head over and doublecheck it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I forgot that SVGs are vector art, so you can resize them without changing resolution. You may actually want to resave that file as a jpeg and upload it that way. I doubt anyone will kick up any fuss, but there's always the odd non-free policy freak out there who may decide to pick on it. Up to you. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Putative Claim of Atenveldt on Iraq

Thanks for your questioning this -- I had missed it. There is only one credible source -- SCA.org gives "the Middle East" to Drachenwald (http://www.sca.org/geography/welcome.html). There are a number of claims by the ill-informed (I snuffed one earlier this week), but the SCA has already ruled on it. CsikosLo (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Heraldry of Sweden

Hi Wilhelm and thanks for the kind message you gave me.

Most articles I wrote were written as starters, for others to improve upon. Swedish heraldry is an example of that. I, somewhat regretfully, realize that many of my articles and illustrations have been of embarrassing quality. I hope to continue work and improve articles and illustrations/photos later some time...

I really like what you have done with Swedish heraldry and it looks like you have many good references. Perhaps you have seen sv:Misplaced Pages:Projekt svensk heraldik (I started this on the Swedish Misplaced Pages, but have not been active there for months either). It has references in Swedish, and other ideas for you to work with. When it comes to drawing svg:s and many other things, user:Lokal_Profil has shown himself most capable, he may be of assistance to you if you need his help.

Feel free to remove/change anything that I wrote that is unreferenced. The sentence In Sweden, all municipalities that once had city rights can, if they choose, have a crown on top of their coat of arms. I might have gotten from Nationalencyklopedin, but it was almost three years ago and I don't remember for sure. Seeing you are not living in Sweden anymore, I might have to look it all up myself -- when I get the time :-)

Best regards,
Fred-J 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Please do check on that (former city arms may have a crown on top). I don't doubt the veracity of it, I just need a verifiable source. Indeed, the days of catching the pendeltåg up to the campus are over for me. It's sad, really, Södertörn has a rather impressive library for such a small school. Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Drottning Silvias vapen

Hi. Since you previously requested Queen Silvias coat of arms I thought I'd drop a note here that I've now done a version of the complete coat of arms including the cross of the Order of the Seraphim. The new version is uploaded as a new file rather then an update though. Cheers Lokal_Profil 01:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk to me

What are you doing? Wrad (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As I just explained on your talk page, I have no problem with you renominating, but please refrain from erasing others' comments and reviews, per WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I did not remove any comments or reviews from any talk pages. You are misinterpreting what I did. I did not remove any of his comments. He merely said on the GAN page that the article was on hold and he was requesting a second opinion. In order for me to withdraw and renominate, I have to fail the article and then renominate it. I failed the article on it's own talk page. The reviewers entire review was still intact. I then removed his statements on the GAN page that the article was on hold and needed a second opinion (if the article is withdrawn, neither of those are true anymore). I removed the old date stamp and added a new one to make it extra clear what I was doing. I also left a succint edit summary. Nothing I did was out of line. I have written 13 good articles and reviewed many, many more. I helped create the GAN process. I know what I am doing. This is just a misunderstanding. Please be more careful in the futre. Be sure that you know exactly what is going on before reverting someone. Wrad (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm meis, Wrad seems to be doing things properly here. Please don't let his frustrating experience get any worse! --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I have interfered in your renomination process. I saw some unusual activity on the GAN page and I was following up to see that a user was not simply blanking the initial review, which is indeed what it initially looked like was going on. Again, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intentions. I'm sure you can appreciate my efforts to keep tabs on the GAN process. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Landskrona-vapnet.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Landskrona-vapnet.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just replaced it by an svg version of the unfree image, found it on the Landskrona site. Temporary solution only. /Lokal_Profil 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And now I've replaced that version by a free one. /Lokal_Profil 23:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wahoo! Tack så mycket! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Counterfactual history

See WP:ELNO #10. Generally I'm not so strict and will allow certain discussion boards if they apply to the article and are large enough, but a single topic is not by itself notable. I can find no evidence that makes the topic in question notable. There are hundreds if not thousands of topics on that discussion board and we can't have editors putting their favorites down, it would swamp the article with unnecessary spam. Besides alternate history and counterfactual history are essentially different ideas and that topic link is more geared to alternate history. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

SCAdian, eh?

Is "Wilhelm Meis" how you are y-clept in the Current Middle Ages? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Lord Inali of Tanasi, G.D.H.; been playing since A.S. VI

Lá, sóþlice ic clepe Wilhelm Meis in þe Isíð Middetíd. ;-) Wilhelm_meis (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't do a lot of SCA stuff outside my own household nowadays; but if you spot me at a WisCon, or an ICON (the Iowa variety), say "Howdy!" --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well met! I would definitely do that, but I won't likely be that way any time soon. I'm headed to the Far West (Okinawa) in just a few weeks! If you see any of my friends from House Leatherwolf, give them my best. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Welfare Proposal

You mentioned at Talk:Social_welfare_provision#Merger_proposal that you would support a welfare wikiproject. I have created a wiki project proposal based on your suggestion for welfare at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Welfare. Come and support it. ^.^Smallman12q (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

English heraldry

On return to the Misplaced Pages world, I'd appreciate it if you could give the above article a read over and note any points you have, with reference to the B-class criteria in particular. Thanks, - Jarry1250 17:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have nominated Swedish heraldry as a GA (here) on your behalf. I think it should pass. If it fails, it fails; in the very least it should give an indication of improvements to be made and/or placed on hold until these are made. Best wishes, - Jarry1250 18:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

'References' in English heraldry

(Apologies for the aggressive tone, it's not deliberate.) Are you sure that author, date and title are necessary in a 'Notes' section when full details are given below? I would have supposed they weren't, because otherwise there's not much need for the references section at all. The Notes/References mix was designed to reduce duplication of details like publishing date from inline citations, and while that is still the case, it does seem to be somewhat contradictory. Do you have a policy/essay/example to hand (there may well be one, I'm not saying there isn't)?

I can't find a mention in WP:FOOT about this issue. - Jarry1250 09:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was in this case just erring on the side of providing more information than the absolute minimum, mostly for my own sake. I was trying to bring everything into one uniform footnote style and sort out which was what, while some things were moved down from footnotes to the bibliography and other things were expanded in the footnotes. One consideration was that there were some authors listed in the bibliography more than once. Usually, I just use for footnotes. The sense I have always gotten from the guides is that there are numerous styles, and which style is used is less important than consistency. So while I tend to use a variation of Harvard style referencing, I try to adapt to what is already there. The bottom line is that whatever is there should be easily understood by the reader. Certainly we can eliminate titles from the footnotes, though, at this point. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I'll make the changes. - Jarry1250 15:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"fad of the 19th century" (Tincture)

I thought it was more of a Renaissance thing... AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. As Fox-Davies confirms, the use of gems, planets, astrological signs, etc., as well as the introduction of "stains" or abatements, were unofficial (and deprecated) practices of the late Middle Ages/Renaissance, while "landscape heraldry" and extensive use of charges tinctured "proper" was a vogue of the 19th century. I'll correct the article. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tintures section of heraldry

So that's two edits reverted, one by you, one by me. Just to make sure I'm correct here: Sinople is the French heraldic term for green (vert being the translation of green) and the other changes the IP has made have been spelling changes based on the French (?). In my mind, there are sources which use more French terms, particularly c.1300 ones, but there is no doubt that the ones there are accepted 'official' ones. Do we have a source to confirm any 'official' status? - Jarry1250 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Vert is the common French word for green, as my Webster's New World French Dictionary confirms, but while English heralds have adopted vert for green, French heralds call it sinople. In the same way an English layperson would say "green", however, a French layperson would say "vert". The problem with putting sinople on our heraldry page is that this is English WP, so we use the terms commonly used in English. That doesn't mean we have to stick to green, but it does mean we use whatever term English heralds use. I've never seen the word sinople appear even once in an English-language book of heraldry. If Boutell, Woodward, Woodcock, Fox-Davies and legions of other English heraldic writers use vert, that is good enough. I don't think we need to support our use of vert with a specific reference. Anyone can open any English language heraldry book and see that the author uses vert throughout. So I wouldn't worry about it. I also see that all of that IP user's other edits on en.WP were immediately reverted as well. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I thought. - Jarry1250 17:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

History of the term "liberal"

If you think merger is a better course of action, then I will agree with you. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dieu et mon droit

I did not simply roll back others edits. I reverted to an earlier version, then re-integrated the translation information, reordered the article, and did a lot of ref checking. The most significant thing I left out was Stephen2nd's nonsensical, OR/SYNTH argument about oath taking. If you see actual improvements that need to made, make them. Otherwise, actually read the versions of the article and the discussions on the talk page before assuming you know what is going on. My edit summary about Stephen not knowing how to edit was not incivility, it was a statement of fact based on several exchanges with him that showed he had no grasp on basic Misplaced Pages policies such as the ones linked to above.

Moreover, your perception that others have said something uncivil is not sufficient reason to revert their edits. -Rrius (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I found some merit in the contributions of each of the article's main editors, so I too incorporated the elements of those edits by others which had merit. My concern is not to get into edit wars with other users, but simply to contribute to the best possible end product. I think we're not so far apart in our vision of this article's potential. We just need to all give each other a little bit of elbow room (myself included). So I'm staying out of the way to let the article's other editors do what they will with it for a while, and hopefully the article will thrive all the better for it. I certainly won't argue with your estimation of the OR/SYNTH elements of some of the earlier versions. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger process

The article merger process is outlined at Help:Merging and moving pages#Performing the merger. No step in that process involves deletion, in any way. Uncle G (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, they should redirect. Thank you for pointing that out. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

Wilhelm, you said that you felt that some people were only interested in pushing a particular point of view. I admitted to you that I was doing exactly that. But I also pointed out that I was not involved in hiding the other points of view. The entire edit war has been because of attempts to hide the Leibniz point of view. If you are not convinced, then you should watch what has just happened on the 'centrifugal force' page . (not the centrifugal force (rotating frames of refernce page)). Have a careful look at my edits and then have a look at what dicklyon did. I'd certainly be interested to hear your input. David Tombe (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are wrong or that Dicklyon is right, but replacing one POV edit with another is no real improvement, even if there are several improvements contained in the same edit, because it is still just as slanted and just as likely to get reverted. I'm asking everyone to kindly knock it off and try to work together better. I have seen some improvement on that front in the past day or two, but we need to keep working together to produce a better article and avoid the kind of arguments that lead to further edit warring. We can go back and forth on it ad infinitum but the poor reader stumbles upon our article and then goes away with even less understanding. WP is an encyclopedia and its articles should enlighten its readers, not baffle them. It is very important that the reader be the first thought in our minds as editors. This admonition applies equally to all the editors of the centrifugal force pages, including Dicklyon. That said, I still stand by my recognition of his valuable contributions even while I disagree with some of his other edits to the same article. I'm not taking up anyone's side here but one: the reader. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, I've just looked at your edits, and for the first time in two years, I think there is now hope of making progress. What we have now is a general article on centrifugal force which covers all the points of view. As I have already said to you, my own preference is the Leibniz/planetary orbital approach, but I have long conceded that there are other approaches, and that indeed the 'rotating frames' approach which I disapprove of is more prolific in the modern literature.

I will endeavour to try and explain the Leibniz approach in a way which is accessible to the average readership. The normal method of collaborative editing is an ongoing process of re-wording other people's edits, as opposed to wholesale reverts. I will make a start. On the other approaches which I don't agree with, I still nevertheless know what they are and I can see right through the dispute between Leibniz and Newton. As you know, those two were at loggerheads with each other over the priority for the invention of calculus. Apparently Newton once held a view on centrifugal force that was similar to Leibniz's, but as soon as Leibniz produced the planetary orbit equation with the real inverse cube law version of centrifugal force, Newton immediately criticized Leibniz's equation on the grounds that it contradicted Newton's 3rd law of motion. In my opinion, Newton's argument was specious because centrifugal force and centripetal force are not an action-reaction pair and they are not even equal in general. The Newton method has gone out of fashion since the 1960's.

At any rate, I will now continue any discussions about this topic with you on the talk page of 'centrifugal force'. I am grateful that you have now finally brokered a framework for agreement. It's really just a matter now of improving the coherence and the finer details. As long as the Leibniz approach is recognized and on the table, I can't see any further basis for trouble unless the supporters of the 'rotating frames' approach try to subsume it. David Tombe (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Leibniz approach is a historical curiosity; someone showed that without using Newton's mechanics, he was able to come up with something that can be worked into the modern form as the same equation that you get in a co-rotating one-dimenionsal frame, i.e. the same as what Goldstein does in his section "Equivalent One-Dimensional Problem" where he shows that the equation for r that he got by Lagrangian methods is the same as the equation in a "fictitious one-dimensional system" in which r-double-dot is treated as an acceleration. David indicated that Leibniz's method is currently used, which jumps over all this, as if modern people adopted an ancient equation without rederiving it from mechanics; and since he for some reasons keeps introducing the undefined notion of "real" for this force, and denies that the one-dimension frame along r rotates, he's not able to find a sensible way to position this approach with respect to what's in modern mechanics texts. That's what's going to make the difficulties continue. But I agree with David on thanking you, Wilhelm, for the help on this sensible approach. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Again what I'm seeing here is a wonderful illustration of the importance of sticking close to the verifiable sources. If you can find it in a reliable source, it's fair game, but if it has to be deduced from the source, it should probably be struck as a synthesis argument. Extensive use of inline citations will ultimately be the key that will drive consensus here; that, and the efforts of everyone to thoroughly discuss BEFORE reverting anything. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. That's why I've put so much effort into finding, buying, and citing sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Cadwaladr disambiguation

I notice that you removed the dn from Wyvern - when I put it there, there were several Cadwaladrs on WP, and I wasn't sure which one was intended. Now I see that one has become Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd, so I have added him to the disambiguation page for Cadwallader. Also the Wyvern article mentions a golden dragon, while Cadwaladr's standard was the red dragon. Can you clarify?! Thanks. Jpaulm (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the Friar source in front of me, but I assume he didn't provide us any further clues as to which Cadwaladr he intended, though we can piece it together to a reasonable degree of confidence from the clues we have. According to the paraphrased passage in Wyvern, Stephen Friar speculates that the wyvern entered British heraldry as the standard of the Roman cohort and later appeared as the "burning dragon" of Cadwaladr (the origin of the gold dragon or Y Ddraig Aur of Wales). From this we know that the symbol in question was referred to as "the burning dragon of Cadwaladr", and prevailing heraldic knowledge tells us that "burning" things in heraldry (salamander, phoenix, etc.) are most often red. This may point to an error in Friar's assumptions, but probably not, since medieval heraldic arms–especially regional arms–frequently alluded to earlier arms by incorporating the same design elements but with different tinctures. Look at the arms of locations in the historical Skåne Province of Sweden, pictured here, for example.

Skåne Province arms (c. 1660)	Skåne County arms	Kristianstad County arms	Malmöhus County arms	Malmö City arms (from 1437)

It is therefore not a great leap to say that a later golden dragon, associated with a location, could be based upon a red dragon associated with an earlier leader from that location. In fact this very phenomenon repeated itself across Europe throughout the Middle Ages. Back to the dab page, there are only three Welshmen named Cadwaladr/Cadwallader with WP articles. One of them was a 20th century poet, so he's right out. Then we have Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon, the legendary seventh century king who was seen as "the promised deliverer, who would one day return to lead the Brythons to victory against the Saxons" (as likely a candidate as there ever was for the origin of the Welsh heraldic symbol), who was also known to bear a red ("burning"?) dragon standard. Finally, five centuries hence, we come to Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd who, as a member of the ancient royalty of Britain, passes WP's notability test, but who, among the ancient royalty of Britain, quickly fades into obscurity. Not to mention that by his time, the other Cadwaladr's standard would have long since become legendary almost in its own right. Is it a deduction, rather than an outright statement by Friar, that he meant the 7th century Cadwaladr and not the 12th century Cadwaladr? Yes, but it is undoubtedly correct. Is it Original Research or Synthesis? Yes, but I did not insert any of it into the article, I just used it to guide my choice of where to point the link. And after all, without original research to guide our editorial decisions, this would be a poor encyclopedia indeed! All that being said, I'm not altogether sure that the Friar reference was the best source, but it's there and I didn't care to uproot it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On a little further contemplation, I'm not at all sure I like the Friar reference. I think it would be less confusing to most readers to say Cadwaladr's dragon was the basis of the red dragon of Wales (Y Ddraig Goch), as this is undoubtedly a more familiar symbol, but I have to assume that the Friar source mentions the gold dragon and not the red one, and we cannot twist sourced material to say something that is not supported by the source text. I wish I had the Friar text to verify. Are we even sure that Cadwaladr's "burning dragon" was a wyvern, or is it tangential information that should be removed as 'off-topic'? I'll see if I can find another source that makes mention of Cadwaladr and his "burning dragon". Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff! That makes a lot of sense, but one does wonder why the Welsh would have both Y Ddraig Goch and Y Ddraig Aur to refer to the same beastie - unless Friar is just showing off his knowledge of Welsh! I will keep an eye on your talk page! Jpaulm (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The wiki search engine

Wilhelm, if I type 'centrifugal force' into the wikipedia search engine, I will arrive at 'centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference)'. Since 'centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference)' and 'reactive centrifugal force' are both branched off from 'centrifugal force', would it not be better that a reader typing in 'centrifugal force' to the search engine is first directed to the general page on 'centrifugal force'? I'd be interested to hear your view on that. David Tombe (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it should point to Centrifugal force, and for me it does. I'm not sure why you would arrive at the other page unless there is a redirect in place, which there hasn't been since Dick introduced the summary article last week. Check it again, and if you're still having problems with it, we'll see if we can figure out why. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, I just tried again. It took me to 'centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference)' and it said at the top of the page 're-directed from centrifugal force'. Would it be something to do with the cookies in the computer which I am using at the moment? David Tombe (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably so. Is it your home/work computer, or a public terminal? What browser are you using? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For Firefox, go to 'Tools' and select 'Clear Private Data', then make sure the boxes for 'Cache' and 'Cookies' are checked, and click 'Clear Private Data Now'. For Opera, it's 'Tools' > 'Advanced' > 'Cookies', and then select the cookies you wish to delete (look for "wikipedia" and "en.wikipedia.org") and delete them manually. For IE, go to 'Tools' > 'Internet Options', then, under the 'General' tab, go to 'Browsing History' and click 'Delete'. This will pull up a pop-up menu. On the pop-up menu, click 'Delete (Temporary) Files' and click 'Delete Cookies'. Then start using Firefox. Or just hit the 'Refresh' button at the end of the URL bar. Seriously, I only use IE on the rare occasions I "have to" because of compatibility issues, and when I opened it just now it totally went berserk for no reason and reminded me why I use Firefox instead. All I did was have it load the home page (Google) while I checked the cookie/cache-clearing walk-through, and when I closed it, it started opening more and more windows on its own like a thing possessed! Anyway, good luck with it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, it's working now thank you. On a more general note, I can see an end in sight to this dispute, because the article for the first time, contains a balanced treatment of the topic. I have noted the attempts to consign the Leibniz approach to history, but I think that the overall situation is vastly improved from how it was in February 2007 when I first looked at this page. I'll try now to sort out the facts surrounding the 'reactive centrifugal force'. My own personal opinion is that it is a specious concept which arose because of Newton's stubborn reaction to Leibniz's planetary equation. Leibniz's equation is possibly one of the most ingenious scientific innovations in modern times, but due to the notorious anymosity between Leibniz and Newton, it seems to have been very much played down. I suspect that Newton instantly identified it as the perfected version of something which he himself had been trying to achieve. It is an ingenious application of calculus as applied to Kepler's laws, and of course Newton and Leibniz both claimed priority over calculus. I think that the problem in this case was that Leibniz beat Newton to that equation.

At any rate, I don't think that there are any of the editors here who support the Newtonian approach, but I'd like to see it at least reported accurately. At the moment, it is not being reported accurately. It is being reported on the basis of how some people think that action and reaction should fit into the picture, as per Newton's third law of motion. I'll see if I can sort this out on the talk page. David Tombe (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not opposed to pulling Leibniz out of the 'History' section if it can be demonstrated, in reliable sources, that the Leibniz approach is one that is not only distinct, but has direct bearing on some real application of CF in contemporary times. I gather from what I have seen so far, however, that the contemporary application of the Leibniz approach is rather limited and often merged/confused with other related ideas. For the time being, I think it is right to discuss Newton, Leibniz, Coriolis, etc. in the 'History' section (though probably with a brief mention in the lead), as these people, instrumental though they were in pioneering the concepts surrounding CF, are not themselves vital to the reader's understanding of the applications of CF. I wouldn't worry a bit about any or all of these people being relegated to the 'History' section, at least they are in the article and (hopefully in the end) each given their fair share of credit. I like the way people are now coming out of the edit war pattern and starting to get excited about contributing to making something better. It's what WP is about. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The re-direct again. It seems to be temporamental. It works sometimes, but mostly it still re-directs to centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference). David Tombe (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, I would certainly have to admit that centrifugal force is being promoted by the majority of modern textbooks within the context of it being a fictitious force in a rotating frame of reference. But I think that we also need to be quite clear about the fact that the Leibniz approach is used in Herbert Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics' to treat the central force orbital problem. Leibniz's equation and equation 3-12 in Goldstein are essentially one and the same equation. Interestingly on page 178 of the 1950 and 1980 editions, Goldstein speaks in terms of the centrifugal force balancing the solar gravity in the Earth's orbit. In the 2002 revision, the new editors go on to introduce a rotationg frame of reference to justify it.

Leibniz's approach is basically that the total radial force is the sum of the centripetal force and the centrifugal force, and that the two are independent of each other. That is the basis upon which orbital theory is treated in modern textbooks. The opposition of the centripetal force (gravity) and the centrifugal force leads to orbits which are elliptical, hyperbolic, or parabolic, depending on the initial energy conditions.

What ought to be a matter of interest to you as an independent arbitrator from outside the field of physics, is why there seems to have been so much resistance to any mention of the Leibniz approach in the article. Do you have any views on the scenario which I put to Brews regarding reactive centrifugal force? David Tombe (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Swedish heraldry

Hi Wilhelm. Thanks for the note on my talk page about the new GAN for the Swedish heraldry article. At the moment, I am not doing any GA reviews, due to a new job (lasting just through the summer) that doesn't allow me much time for internet access. I apologize for not being able to do the new review on this article, and I hope that a reviewer picks it up soon. Good luck! Dana boomer (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The re-direct again

Wilhelm, I have been using a few different computers and I am still having that problem with the search engine. Sometimes it works correctly and takes me straight to centrifugal force. But on most occasions, it takes me to the fork article 'centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference)'. I tried to fix it myself but I got as far as this page . Would you know what to do next? David Tombe (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, I'll do as you suggest at the village pump eventually. I have had the same problem with a few computer terminals. However, I'll wait for a while and check out a few more terminals first. The edit war at centrifugal force is essentially over. The framework for a settlement is now in place. Whether or not the war flares up again will depend on the extent to which any future proliferation of the Leibniz approach meets with strenuous resistance. I have just been in e-mail contact with a few people about the historic dispute between Newton and Leibniz and I have been informed that Godel is on record as having said that there is a conspiracy to suppress Leibniz. Leibniz gets close to Einstein's general relativity but his ideas clash with Einstein's special relativity. I will either put in a brief section on planetary orbits based on Leibniz and Goldstein, or else I will put in a section on changing attitudes towards centrifugal force. If the latter is resisted, that in itself will prove the very point in question. I think that the entire edit war began because the page was being watched by a group who had learned about centrifugal force in the way that it is most commonly taught, and they didn't want to face up to the fact that there was anything deficient in their education. I think we were witnessing a bit of the old Orwellian 'other approaches to this topic don't exist and never existed'. Frames of reference are an essential aspect of Einstein's special theory of relativity and the absolute motion that is demonstrated by rotation, as in the Bucket argument threatens that theory. Hence you can see with your own eyes, the attempts that have been made to deny the Newtonian conclusion on the Bucket argument. David Tombe (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, David. Your Orwell reference made me smile. It's not often that I hear a reference to Orwell that is so dead-on. I'm not so sure I would toss around any direct accusations of wrong-doing, however, pursuant to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Remember also that there is never any good reason to renew an edit war, no matter how wrong the other side may be. Just appeal to the better nature of the article's editing community on the article's talk page, and seek admin intervention only if necessary. Be sure to pick your battles and never cry wolf. Then, when you do request intervention, you have credibility on your side (with some help from solid reliable sources). Again, I think the CF article is on the right track, but what will ultimately drive consensus is if everyone plays by the rules. I am leaving further comments on the specific points at Talk:Centrifugal force, as these comments are for everyone. Have a good day! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, since you have taken such an interest in centrifugal force and appear to be able to comprehend the topic, I will give you a short summary on exactly what was behind the edit war. You can now see how I was trying to promote centrifugal force as being the very real outward expansion which arises as a result of mutual transverse motion.

The opposition on the other hand were insisting that the topic needs to be considered in relation to rotating frames of reference. For the special case when objects are co-rotating with the rotating frame, while I could see no technical problem as such, I considered these rotating frames to be a totally unnecessary encumbrance.

But the real problem came about when the opposition extrapolated the rotating frame concept to its absurd conclusion. They would consider the situation in which an object, that is not actually rotating, is viewed from a rotating frame of reference. From the rotating frame, such an object will be seen to trace out a circular motion. It will not however be moving radially outwards. In my opinion therefore, no centrifugal force exists in that situation. However, by a manipulation of mathematics, the opposition were arguing that a centrifugal force did exist, but that it was being over-ruled by a more dominant inward Coriolis force that had somehow swung around into the radial direction. Alot of the most bitter arguments this time last year were over my attempts to expose the flaw in this mathematical argument.

Unfortunately however, some sources do exist which promote this idea. It then became a question of trying to balance the article with other sources which dealt with planetary orbital theory using the Leibniz approach. But superior numbers amongst a dug-in opposition refused to countenance the Leibniz approach.

From an idealogical perspective, the conflict was between an 'absolute rotation and real outward radial expansion' approach supported by myself, against an 'all things are relative/it depends on how you look at it' approach adopted by the opposition. They were effectively undermining the reality of centrifugal force by arguing that it was merely a product of mathematical transformation of coordinates. David Tombe (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not ideological wierdos at work here; it's how it works in standard modern physics, with the standard definitions of centrifugal force and Coriolis force as fictitious forces that arise in rotating reference frames. The real problem seems to be David's inability to admit either that it works or that it's the standard dominant approach, and he wants to attribute it to the shortcomings of wikipedia editors instead. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, time out, you guys can argue on your own talk pages. I think what has enabled me to become somewhat of a mediator in this thing is the fact that while I have a good basic understanding of physics, I am not particularly opinionated on CF. I can understand each position without taking up sides. Aside from that, I maintain a certain objectivity and emotional detachment. For example, in heraldry (something I know much more about than physics) I maintain enough objectivity to report on Fox-Davies' disdain for the "absurdity" of classifying certain charges as "Honourable Ordinaries", while recognizing the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of this classification, and all the while refrain from taking up the banner of the argument myself. I tend to avoid the term "Ordinaries" when possible and use it only in the narrowest sense, because I happen to agree with Fox-Davies that it is a lamentable term most likely invented by heraldic writers and not by heralds, but nonetheless, the term appears in nearly every heraldry article I have written, largely because Fox-Davies holds a minority opinion among the reliable sources (most sources don't even address the issue of the term's origin, only briefly mentioning its haphazard application). In this sense, I can sympathize with David and his struggle to make sure that the minority opinion is represented in the article. At the risk of repeating myself, however, I feel that both David and the "opposition" are a little too emotionally involved in the material. If everyone would take a step back, breathe deeply, and approach it as something they find interesting but are not passionate about, it would help everyone to gain the proper detachment necessary to report and inform rather than instruct and defend. This dispassionate objectivity is a fundamental key to editing any article with a Neutral Point of View and encyclopedic tone, and to avoiding edit wars of all stripes. I hope it is what each editor takes away from their experience with the CF articles. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A Bureaucratic Strategy

Wilhelm, if you are still watching the debate at centrifugal force, I would like to draw your attention to what is happening now. There are three approaches to this topic. But for some reason, the Leibniz approach is an unpalatable truth for the editors that I am in opposition against. I have tried to be reasonable in that I am neither suppressing their preferred viewpoint (rotating frames/fictious approach) nor their acceptable face of opposition (The Newton method). In fact I have gone out of my way to concede that their way is the way that is most commonly promoted in modern textbooks, and I wrote that into the main article. Their way now takes first place.

But as you can see from the discussion page, they have removed a table because it dared to speak of the third way. Dick pointed out an error which I made in the table. I was aware of that error after I made it, but it could easily have been rectified without doing a wholesale removal of the table. The word 'any frame' only needed to be replaced by 'inertial frame'.

This is what I feared was going to happen. The framework would be established to end the edit war, but that these guys would then slowly but surely move in to erase all references to a third way. As you can see, they have been accusing me of giving too much prominence to the Leibniz approach. By 'too much prominence' I assume that they are referring to the fact that it has been mentioned at all.

This is a classical bureacratic tactic which involves the use of boxes. If a third way is unpalatable, then set up a system of boxes that don't recognize its existence. Make the boxes only acknowlegde two approaches. Stick to the party line approach and one acceptable face of opposition which has been judged to be benign, possibly because its faults are blatantly obvious. David Tombe (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

David, I am backing off a little bit, not just from this article, but from WP altogether, as I am getting a little busier now, but I will be sure to check in from time to time. Reviewing the article's history and talk page, I see that the article is still slowly moving toward consensus. I can also see that this annoys you because you disagree with some points of that consensus, and because you had a recent edit reverted two or three times by different editors. You might not want to hear this, but when the same edit is reverted by different editors, it is usually a good indication that there is solid consensus against it. I also happen to agree with the reversion in this case because the purpose of the sections in a summary style article is first and foremost to summarize the basic idea of the branch article, not to explain the history of the idea. I'm afraid the best you can do for now is to work within the existing consensus and influence it rather than fighting against it. The article is improving overall, and other than a few reverts, I think people are in much more of a cooperative mood. I'm not so sure they are plotting against anyone. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)