User talk:Ondewelle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Winston Churchill[edit]

Hi, and welcome to wiki. I noticed that you changed the line 'prime minister of great britain', to 'prime minister of the united kingdom'. Admittedly the two descriptions are each half of the full name, but I suspect churchill would have been more likey to think of himself as PM of Great Britain, rather than the more egalitarian sounding UK? He was running a country which still had a world spanning empire Sandpiper (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome! The trouble is that Great Britain is not a country. It is an island, really, the island on which England, Scotland and Wales are situated. Churchill could have been described as the "British prime minister" because the adjective "British" has come to be accepted as the de facto adjective relating to the UK (as well as to Great Britain, of course). The UK might have had an empire in Churchill's day, but he was not prime minister of the empire, he was just prime minister of the UK. Ondewelle (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, but even to me, UK is a modern invention. The article is discussing a historical position which is not the same one as now. What occurred to me was how would it have been described at the time. Sandpiper (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
At the time it was the United Kingdom. (The full title was then, and still is, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Referring to the country as Great Britain leaves out Northern Ireland — and some people in Northern Ireland would find that deeply, but deeply, offensive. It's also not accurate. Before Irish independence in 1922, the country was still the United Kingdom: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.)
I am not sure, not being old enough, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if people generally would have called the chap prime minister of England, never mind great britain? Sandpiper (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, some might have, particularly unofficially! But that was not his official title, obviously. Ondewelle (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Climate Orange[edit]

Agreed, the Orange post office weather station data is obsolete but the climate table in the article is out of date, and therefore the summary data, if Orange Airport is to be used as the reference. See Orange Airport AWS Climatology Scrooke (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the reference now which has more data from 1968. It can be confusing when official websites have several places where you can source what should be the same data. The source used appears to be a composite of an older manually recorded station and the new AWS (from 1996). Cheers Scrooke (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I don't think that the Australian BOM data is presented in the most satisfactory way. Ah well... Ondewelle (talk)


You rock! Keep up the great work. Ground Zero | t 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The climate of Istanbul does not neatly fit into a particular climate due to its geography and latitude and also climate change, as it is far too erratic and of a transitional type.[edit]

The climate of Istanbul cannot be classified as mediterranean. Its climate is frequently classifed into the very broad and too vague classification of temperate climate, and also but less frequenetly mediterranean (dry subtropical), humid subtropical and temperate-continetal, which makes it very confusing. In fact the climate of Istanbul is a transitional climate as it is far too erratic to be classified as simply and just as temperate, mediterranean and continental, though it is influenced by each climate: in winter (frequent heavy snowfalls and sub-zero temperatures) and in summer (heatwaves and little rainfall). Though summer is the driest season, there is no real summer drought as rain ,though occurring on average 5 days each summer month, does occur (usually in heavy downpours) in that seasson, as it does occur all year round, and so the climate cannot be considered "typically" mediterranean. The Köppen categorization for the mediterranean climate (Csa) though influenced by it especially in the summer does not suffice. The erratic climate of Istanbul does not neatly fit into a particular climate due to its geography and latitude and especially climate change. Istanbul does have a transitional climate between temperate and mediterranean and continental. That it is how the climate of Istanbul is categorized in Turkey. But it does not have the "typical" mediterranean climate of Athens, the "typical" temperate climate of London nor the "typical" continental climate of Sofia. I know there is no satisfying answer as too many sources, including offical meteorogical organizations, categorize the climate of Istanbul so differently.

There is a Turkish wikipedia link with a map of Turkey's different climates tr:Türkiye'deki iklim çeşitleri

1. Yellow is "Continental"
2. Green is "Oceanic"
3. Fuchsia is "Mediterranean" and
4. Dark Green is "Marmara" meaning "Transitional" between "Oceanic" and "Mediterranean"

On the map Istanbul is situated between "Oceanic" and "Transitional" which hardly makes it simpler.

Istanbul is classified as a transitional climate.[edit]

Istanbul is classified as a transitional climate. Istanbul's climate like most of the Marmara region it is situated in is exactly in that category, midway between that of the oceanic climate of the Black Sea, the humid continental climate of the Balkan peninsula and the mediterranean climate of the southwest. Obviously an anonymous user has argued this with you already with a Turkish wikipedia link of a map with climatic zones of Turkey. While the climate of Istanbul lies in the temperate zone with temperate central european flora especially dominating, it cannot be simply categorized into one particular climate as such, in this case mediterranean, because it simplifies and also misleads. Though influenced by each, none of these climates can be said to be the dominating ones throughout the year, but their influence is particularly felt according to each season.

Kindest regards Saguamundi

Though the average annual temperatures of Istanbul are not extreme (on charts anyway) whatever season, the humidity is indeed high throughout the year (the price for being situated by the sea) does make the air very unpleasant even unbearable/gruesome especially in the summer, summer nights included; even though the temparatures fluctuate around the high 20°C's and low 30°C's and the summer night are usually below 20°C. With rainfall, though fortunately not very frequent, makes the situation much worse, like a Turkish bath! The winters are definately more bearable but the humidity and wind chill can also make it feel much colder than it is. At least one has to dress warmly to avoid that, but in the summer there is no such reprieve, since most people do not have air conditioners. Obviously I make it sound like New Delhi or Baghdad or even New York. The locals try to avoid the heat, if they have no business to attend, by staying indoors, under the shade or swimming in the dirty cold sea.
The annual average humidity should definately be put to make it more "scientific" and "professional".
Here are some websites with charts showing the annual average humidity of Istanbul: Istanbul, Turkey Historical Weather Data with Monthly Details (Source: International Station Meteorological Climate Summary) Istanbul, Information - Facts for the visitors: Climate (Shows the average annual humidity) Istanbul, Climate (Shows the average annual humidity) Istanbul Climate and Weather (Used as reference in the Istanbul Wikipedia article)
However the first website, though very detailed, does not show the average annual humidity, it shows the Average Morning Relative Humidity and Average Afternoon Relative Humidity as well as Average Wind Speed, Highest Recorded Temperature, Lowest Recorded Temperature among many other data. And the other two websites show different information, though close to each other, on the average annual humidity. The last website does not show the average annual humidity but is used as reference in the Istanbul Wikipedia article. However most annoyingly the official meteorological website of Turkey does not have a separate climate page for Istanbul at all.
I hope it helps Saguamundi


Thanks for your contribution to the Launceston, Tasmania article. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem; keep up the great work. Every little bit helps :) Aaroncrick (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Anglican churches[edit]

Hi Ondewelle, I noticed your name popping up recently on many of my watchlisted pages. I'm keen to see coverage of churches improved, so am glad to see your contributions. You might be interested in a list I started that organizes some of the Anglican church information: List of Anglican churches in the Diocese of Sydney. If you can add to it in any way, I'd appreciate it. 99of9 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

St Andrew's Cathedral[edit]

Concerning your edits, they were all marked as minor edits, as they were individually, but some of them altered wording. It would be good if you could leave edit summaries such as "grammar", "caps, lc" or whatever. It saves the watchers from having to check it all out. Once I know who you are and what you do, I don't bother checking. I just presume you have it all under control. But one does have to watch Americans who write "Spelling" in the summary and then rip through, changing all the "-ours" to "-ors" etc, in the art articles. Amandajm (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought all your changes were for the better! Amandajm (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II[edit]

Would you take a look at the revised Intro. Having got the support of three others, I went ahead and rewrote it. One of the "owners" has twice reverted it, despite impeccable references and a quote from Boris. The editor asks "Why is it significant that the Queen visited germany? They are a German family." This is not the right person to be controlling what goes into the article. I need backup. Because of the parade, there have been 200,000 hits this morning, and its only about 8 oclock! Amandajm (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it's better, much better. It still mentions the events of 1992, but in less forensic detail (the details are discussed further down the article). It remains to be seen what others make of it, I guess.
As a separate point, for someone to argue that the Queen's family is German is just an absurdity. She has some German forebears (although the closest one usually cited, Queen Mary, was in fact born and brought up in England and certainly didn't think of herself as "German"). George I was from Hannover, but he was her sixth-great-grandfather! Ondewelle (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The saga of Elizabeth II continues. Every point is a battle. Everything that I try to improve is reverted. Here is the latest:

Elizabeth II[edit]

Still working on this article. Still being reverted at every turn. This is my latest message. I need back-up.

  • DrKiernan, what you have written here only makes sense if:
You can conveniently ignore the fact that several independent editors: User:Andrew Davidson, Greenshed and Ondewelle all stated on this page that the the Introduction needed improving, while wrote "barely interesting information that would be largely incomprehensible to a typical reader. Epic fail."
  • What you have written here only makes sense if you, and the other reverters truly believe :
  1. that the fact that the Queen is Head of the Church of England didn't need to be in the Intro.
  2. that the Coronation was less important than the fact it was televised
  3. that the war in the Falklands was less important than Andrew and Fergie's divorce
  4. That the Queen's achievements didn't require stating at all
  5. That the whole events of a year that was 20 years ago is still so "up there" that it has to be detailed the intro, to the exclusion of a favourite uncle's assassination and the deaths of mother and sister.
  6. That Princess Diana really required three mentions in the introduction
  7. That the Queen stayed in the palace while in mourning was more significant to her reign than the fact that she visited the Pope, after a breach of 500 years.
  8. That the fact she is the world's most travelled head of state is not noteworthy enough for the introduction.
  9. That a spat between two Corgis takes precedence over the Gulf War
  10. That it is really significant that some viewers (in 1953) went to their neighbour's house to watch the tele.
  11. That if a newspaper or chatty biographer tells us what the Queen thinks of her Prime Minister, then it can be quoted as encyclopaedic fact.
Those of these matters that I have raised here or have tried to edit have been repeatedly argued against and deleted. Some have finally been accepted, in the light of criticism from others, but it has been very very difficult (and exhausting) to get you to accept any of these changes.
Your favourite argument is that there is no consensus. Do the opinions of User:Andrew Davidson, Greenshed, Ondewelle, and Amandajm count for nothing? That makes five people who think this article needs improvement.
However, all the others merely made their point, and went away, probably presuming that having given an opinion, it would be taken seriously, and acted upon. Unfortunately, they didn't count on the extraordinary difficulty that an editor might have in actually achieving improvement.
Amandajm (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed[edit]

Hello Ondewelle,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! MarchionessGrey (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)