User talk:Polentario

Welcome!

Hello, Polentario, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kingturtle 00:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tierschutz

EBERSTEIN, W. (1999): Das Tierschutzrecht in Deutschland bis zum Erlaß des Reichs- Tierschutzgesetzes vom 24. November 1933. Unter Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in England. Frankfurt a. M. Thats a Docotral thesis about the developement of the animal protection law till 1933 which thoroghly goes through the english parallels

German and French Influence on Baath Party & Arab Nationalism

Hi there,

Re: Baath party article, Thank you for your numerous contributions and editing work. Focusing SOLELY on ‘German thinkers’ is excessive: 19th century center-left French ‘Positivism’ played major role… + N.B.: Satii Al Husri was NOT one of the Baath co-founders.

Cordially,

R.Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RazeYathrib (talk • contribs) 11:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC) OK --Polentario (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Behz

You will see that this user has been blocked indefinitely by Wikipedia Administrators for sockpuppetry. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Peak oil

Please answer these questions. NJGW (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

English in talk pages

Please read wp:Talk, which states in part "No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so and cannot, it is your responsibility to either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy." NJGW (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

HI NJGW as said, you find me more often on the german pages, so I recommand to leave messages overthere. I had started the discussion on the peak oil article disk but havent received any answers so far. BR --Polentario (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Germany

Welcome, Polentario, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
• Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
• We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks you can do. Please remove completed tasks from the list.

• Requests: German Archaeological Institute at Rome, Deutsche Familienversicherung, Dietlof von Arnim-Boitzenburg, Rolf von Bargen, Micky Beisenherz, Hennes Bender, Georg Bernhard (1875–1944), Eduard Georg von Bethusy-Huc, Rolf Brandt (1886–1953), Jan Philipp Burgard, Georg Arbogast von und zu Franckenstein, Georg Gafron, Ferdinand Heribert von Galen, Gundula Gause, Karl-Heinz Hagen, Herbert Helmrich, Nils von der Heyde, Monty Jacobs (1875–1945), Hans Katzer, Siegfried Kauder, Matze Knop, Wolfgang Kryszohn, Claus Larass, Isidor Levy (1852–1929), Markus Löning, Anke Plättner, Hans Heinrich X. Fürst von Pless, Gerd Poppe, Victor-Emanuel Preusker, Günter Prinz, Hans Sauer (inventor), Franz August Schenk von Stauffenberg, Paul Schlesinger (1878-1928),Oscar Schneider, Hajo Schumacher, Otto Theodor von Seydewitz, Dorothea Siems, Werner Sonne, Anton Stark, Udo zu Stolberg-Wernigerode, Christoph Strässer, Torsten Sträter, Joseph von Utzschneider, Jürgen Wieshoff, Hans Wilhelmi, Alexandra Würzbach
• Unreferenced: Unreferenced BLPs, Bundesautobahn 93, Benjamin Trinks, Steeler (German band), Amelie Beese, Zoologisches Museum in Kiel, Emil Krebs, Prussian semaphore system, Partenstein, Peter Krieg, Porsche 597, Christa Bauch, Curt Cress, Stefan Beuse
• Cleanup: 53541 issues in total as of 2024-03-03
• Translate: Articles needing translation from German Wikipedia
• Stubs: Albersdorf, Thuringia, Ingo Friedrich, Berndt Seite, Federal Social Court; 113 articles in Category:German MEP stubs
• Update: Deutsches Wörterbuch
• Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements and the todo list
• Orphans: Orphaned articles in Germany
• Photo: Take/Add requested photographs

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Agathoclea (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Insertion of the Hüne reference in Politics of Global warming

It would be rather nice if you would provide page references for the citations. I've reverted the addition you just made, since i couldn't via a Google Book check of the Hüne reference, find any support for Nixon being pioneer on Global warming (on the environment in general - yes). Since i'm aware that page-numbers in the reference would make the reference-list grow to the extreme, i'd prefer if you just put it in a comment with < !-- page number --> (like i've done here: (invisible)). Or at least when in your edit-comment. Thanks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was the one Nixon sent to NATO and which introduced the topics of acid rain and greenhouse effect himself. Noixon wanted the environment to come on NATOS agenda and to have the organization build up a third pillar. Thats very clearly stated at pages 142 and 143 in Hünemörders Book. BR Polentario

Danke Sehr. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bitteschön. Any Questions about the exact wording are welcome. --Polentario (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Radkau / Sternenfels

Sure - I'd be happy to look at it for you. Tonight work? --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Kewl, even if they ask for an English native, I think an American will be very welcome... I am available now and then. --Polentario (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Climate change

Thank you for your comments Polentario. Much appreciated. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Commas and Decimal Points

Wikipedia convention is to use commas (,) for large numbers and periods (.) to denote the separation before fractional numbers. In other words, one thousand thirty five and twenty four hundredths should be written: "1,035.24" and not as "1.035,24". You appear to using the reversed convention. This is not correct on the English Wikipedia. Please adopt our standard in the future. Dragons flight (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thats a teutonism. Sorry. --Polentario (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Black pudding#Europe: still life with sausages

The picture summary on Commons does not say anything about this being blood sausage. Can you please source this information so that we know what the still life is really showing? And do Italians really call it Blutwurst? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just hava look. its as blutwurst as it is polish cucumbers and a great tit on it.

An italian master might have depicted a German Scene

The pic is called STILLEBEN MIT TRAUBEN, WURST, GURKE BROT UND KOHLMEISE, at least ba Hampel, who sold it 2006 in Munich. --Polentario (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Chatter

I removed our chatter [2]. Clearly, it had nothing to do with improving the article William M. Connolley (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Light on the horizon?

- - According a statement of Mojib Latif on the UN's World Climate Conference 2009 in Geneva, Forecasts of Global Warming have to be corrected seriously. One might have to expect "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool". "People will say this is global warming disappearing," --Polentario (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

-

- - : Hey, don't forget his holiness the Pope! Another favourite climate nostrum was upturned when Pope warned that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming. says that same article. Or, to be somewhat serious: articles that quote the Pope on scientific matters shouldn't be referenced in serious discussion. Now if you could find what Latif actually said, that might be interesting, though irrelevant to this article William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC) - - :: William - I thought I could round up here the usual suspects and as you turned up, I assume I was right. To be honest I preferred the quote "Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts,". My Goodness? Ann Henderson-Sellers didnt get her gun right I assume. Sounds like those tiny little compies got hurt feelings. - :: Talking about "pope" I agree with you totally - Benedikt XVI shouldnt be taken for serious in climate matters The Litany. Wether on will ever exchange "opposing" with "presenting" in this lemma, I am not to sure, probably its more "not caring a xxxx xxx" . Textwise I dont have more to offer, it came in yesterday on Benny Peisers newsletter besides cancelled hotel rooms in Stockholm some days ago. I assume its wait Cool Down and see now. --Polentario (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bjørn Lomborg

Please establish consensus first before you delete such large and sourced sections of an article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No Consensus is no reason to revert. The cited controvers is of no actual interest. BR --Polentario (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please establish consensus before you delete most of this article. It is up to you to gain consensus for this deletion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Its for you to find a reason why this yawning old stuff should be kept. Its a clear violation of undue weight. --Polentario (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page of the article in question, please. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

People on both sides of Lomborg's views took a lot of time developing that part of the article. It may be as long as it is due to the need to be very precisely factual. I could support a shortened version, but I know that the shortened version I would support would be rejected by others. Regardless, I agree with User:Saddhiyama; if you want to make that big a change, discuss at on the talk page first. Cheers. Unschool 07:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

get a threeliner for it and done. --Polentario (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR on Bjørn Lomborg

You've now broken WP:3RR on the BL article - i suggest you revert yourself. As you are an old user (both here and on the German wikipedia), you are familiar with the policy (and you have previously received such warnings [3]). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I havent broken 3RR at all, just compare the edits. Furthermore, the Undue Weight ist clearly stated and evident. Try a version, that is in line with the role of the book and author. EOD. --Polentario (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You have 4 reverts on the article, within the last 24 hours. That is a breach of WP:3RR. You have also failed to engage in discussions. If you do not self-revert i will have to take it up on WP:AN3. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have started discussions and I clearly stated what has to happen according WP rules. Ths controversy hasnt had a major effect contributing to Lomborgs life and career and hasnt had any significant role in his biography. To keep it in the article is just plain smearing. Its up to you to prove that it should be kept. So far no evidence. --Polentario (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since you ignore the warning - i have taken it to WP:AN3. [4] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Youre ignoring evidence and WP:BIO. --Polentario (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but 3RR is a policy - and you broke it. The rest is something that you will have to take up on talk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm youre again about undue weight. I suggested a suitable compromise on the talk page. BR --Polentario (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Suitable to you perhaps. But apparently the other editors of that article disagree. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm just compare length of the wording. BR --Polentario (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Bjørn Lomborg. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Abecedare (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Also see my note at the AN3 noticeboard report that led to the block. Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Polentario (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As shown on the User site, i searched for a consensus, however the current version is not acceptable for various reasosn

Decline reason:

Perhaps, but edit warring is not acceptable for any reason (in the absence of obvious and blatant vandalism, which is not the case here.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

RealClimate

How about we leave the pov notice there for awhile, to let editors and readers know that there is an ongoing dispute, currently under discussion? --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I just suggest you open a new thread on the disc. Wether a POV tag or not is used, I assume the climate crowd will turn up soon enough. --Polentario (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Was that just a good guess, or are they that predictable? ;^) --Ronz (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And you removed the tag again. Please remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, and that building a quality encyclopedia depends upon notifying others of areas where articles may need help. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

They much more predictable than weather, beware of climate. Hmm what is the english term for Bausteinwerfen? Brickthrowing? smilíng --Polentario (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zentralorgan

The article Zentralorgan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page was created during an edit war for the sole purpose of "proving" that the editors interpretation of a term used in an interview in Die Zeit meant what he wanted it to mean:

"Zentralorgan (with reference to pre 1989 official communist newspapers)" [5]

Looks like a lot of original research, and dubious if English Wikipedia should have an article about this German term in the first place.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
—Apis (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I found some other use in quite important and internationally renowned journals, e.g. the DIN journal or theodor Herzls Zentralorgan for the zionist moevemtn. Defeinitely of interest as well in other languages. --Polentario (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Talk page guidelines

Could you please try to stick a bit closer to the topic of improving the article? This sort of personal commentary is off topic and skirts WP:No personal attacks. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm Conolley is contributor ro Realscience, and Kim his Adlatus. If to mention this is a PA, so be it. Lawrence Solomon mad its way into german blogosphere and WP btw. --Polentario (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Lemma

The use of the term "Lemma" to refer to the title of an article is a distinctly local phenomenon on the German Wikipedia. I've never seen this use on the English Wikipedia, or indeed in any English text - and I'm fairly widely read. It might lead to less confusion if you avoid or explain it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

sounds like another example for Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750–1970. Suzanne L. Marchand needs a "lemma" as well. BR and thnx --Polentario (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"...not very helpful edit" re Helmut Khol

Lummee, if you ever find one that you determine to be "profoundly bad" please don't advertise it - civilisation may be at risk! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I always admired british understatement :) --Polentario (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Jerome Ravetz

Gore-Effekt

What's on the page is a poor partial machine-translation, with all sorts of artifacts of German grammar, spelling, etc. (including Gore-Effekt in bold in the first line). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tsts....--Polentario (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well your article lasted about as long as mine will mate, good try though :) mark nutley (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

think one should put forces together. The German AGW crowd tried to erase the german article the same way but it held water there. One of the reasons is Harald Martensteins article in Die Zeit. Hes a wellknown liberal author, the Zeit a major and ackowledged weekly and not at all in the Murdoch camp. --Polentario (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Article probation notification

The famous 1831 caricature of Louis-Philippe turning into a pear would mirror the deterioration of his popularity. (Honoré Daumier, after Charles Philipon who was jailed for the original.)

Please note that articles relating to climate change are currently on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dieu et mon droit, or was it "See, he has taken England with both his hands". You been a little bit too quick on the steps of your leader.

Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. inappropriate accusation of bad-faith editing

--Polentario (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is what you pretty much admitted you were doing with your re-creation of the "Gore effect" article, is not recommended if you want to continue editing articles in this topic area. I suggest that you reconsider your approach to Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer you would try at leat to fake a sort of unbiased view. As so far, it was just goosestepping on Connolleys orders.

Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. inappropriate accusation of bad-faith editing

--Polentario (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you continue making personal attacks you will face a request for article probation enforcement. Your behaviour so far has been wholly unconstructive. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have commented that the article has received further sourcing in various international newspaper and added a Hangon and went through the article for grammar issues. I had a edit conflict wirth your overspeedy erasure, the G1 claim is ridiculous and any attemopst for improvement were not given due time.

You been running through in much too close timely connection with Connolleys request. Given his background, and the way you seem to follow him. I clearly doubt your claims about balancy and unbiased judgement. Thats all.

Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. inappropriate accusation of bad-faith editing

--Polentario (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no connection whatsoever with WMC, but I have had previous involvement in dealing with the previous iterations of this article. It has been deleted five times already as non-notable, a hoax and an attack page. That should have indicated to you that the article is not welcome on the English Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxes are surely part of WP, and attack pages are surely mentionable if they get international interest. Thats exactly the case with the article. I dont care wether its welcome by a certain scene or not. You did a speedy erase on the reason you mention now, not on the one and only you mentioned during your edit. Thats biased and unbalanced. --Polentario (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Your comments above contain blatant personal attacks, please remove them and avoid such conduct in the future. Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm so far, I commented on the fact that a quick erasure was done under other preconditions than those mentioned here. If I see this as a clear break of conduct, its just stating plain facts. --Polentario (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've shown what was objectionable above. Please assume good faith of your fellow editors. Vsmith (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)