User talk:Charles01

Please enter new messages at the end of the page. If you put them at the top, I will put them there. Otherwise, if some new messages are at the top (or even in the middle), and others are at the end, the chronology of the page gets hard to follow and the primary talk-page user gets confused.

Archives

Discussions are archived here according to the discussion start date. Q1 - 2007: Q2 - 2007: Q3 - 2007: Q4 - 2007 Q1 - 2008: Q2 - 2008: Q3 - 2008: Q4 - 2008 Q1 - 2009: Q2 - 2009: Q3 - 2009: Q4 - 2009 Q1 - 2010: Q2 - 2010: Q3 - 2010: Q4 - 2010 Q1 - 2011: Q2 - 2011: Q3 - 2011: Q4 - 2011 Q1 - 2012: Q2 - 2012: Q3 - 2012: Q4 - 2012 Q1 - 2013: Q2 - 2013: Q3 - 2013: Q4 - 2013 Q1 - 2014: Q2 - 2014: Q3 - 2014: Q4 - 2014 Q1 - 2015: Q2 - 2015: Q3 - 2015: Q4 - 2015 Q1 - 2016: Q2 - 2016: Q3 - 2016: Q4 - 2016 Q1 - 2017: Q2 - 2017: Q3 - 2017: Q4 - 2017 Q1 - 2018: Q2 - 2018: Q3 - 2018: Q4 - 2018 Q1 - 2019: Q2 - 2019: Q3 - 2019: Q4 - 2019 Q1 - 2020: Q2 - 2020: Q3 - 2020: Q4 - 2020

... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 15:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refer to any editor as a psychopath as you did here[1], It's one thing sarcastically calling them "Comrade" but it's another to call them the other word,

I understand and appreciate you're frustrated but that's no excuse for that edit summary,

If you make similar comments like that in future you could be blocked,

On a happier note I wish you and yours a very Happy and Healthy New Year,

Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 15:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that my judgement may well have been at fault in this. Your chum had already told me he did not wish to be addressed or identified by his user name which would be the more usual solution. Your own aggressive reaction is unhelpful and, from you, hypocritical. And your "merry Christmas" flag is both inconsistent and out of date. But I note that you feel strongly about the matter, and of course I respect your right to do so. Happy day! Charles01 (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for saying calling someone a sad prick ... sure it's not exactly polite but it's nicer than being called a psychopath!,

I was unaware of that but if he's fine with that then great,

The signature is used for the festive period and I don't remove the Christmas part when Christmas ends- It all stays as is until I can be bothered to change it back but thanks for your comments,

Anyway have a great New Year, Cheers. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 16:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just address me as Nim, plain simple. Its not hard, its what I've been addressed as by people and I shall be addressed as that. So please, address me as Nim. Also Davey2010 is not a 'hypocrite', the block log that happened in the past can be forgotten after six months or more, its time for him to move on and do bigger stuff. Davey2010, please note, I do enjoy you as a friend, despite out differences --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reassuring off-wiki messages in respect of this outburst. I think it is correct that "Davey" is not an admin, but in fairness I don't think he actually wrote that he was! Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henriette Fürth, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Palestine and University of Frankfurt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else got in first. Thank you, someone else Charles01 (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles, My apologies I was indeed meant to have readded your edit back so apologies for that, Thanks for readding your edit back :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that (at least on this occasion!) I read you correctly. Thanks for the confirmation. Charles01 (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tilly Spiegel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nancy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I was categorising and sorting, this photo from one of your scans peaked my interest, not because of the car but the background and the people. That what I always like about your scans by taking pictures of cars of that time but inevitably catch a glimpse of what life was like in that time period. Things to point it out is how people were dressed and wondering the fate of them. The middle age chap as well as the parents with the child must be in their 70s today, the child in the pram would be around in it 40s but the elderly couple are likely left this world by now.

One of the many things I speculate about you ever since I joined Wikipedia is your age (I apologise if this is embarrassing or personal to you). Using your earliest photo from 1968, my guess is that you were in your 20s at the time and was born just after the war. I find history and past life like this fascinating but unless you want to keep this semi-ambiguous character to yourself then that's fair enough but it does mean my curiosity will continue to itch me overtime. --Vauxford (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just going to acknowledge what I said rather then responding? It was more of a question/discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an acknowledgement felt more friendly than a steely silence. But yes, I had intended to reply only after I'd thought what to write. Maybe now I have. We've just got back from visiting rellies which involved a splendid chilli con carne (is that how you spell it?) and a 400 mile round trip. It's been a good day, but not strictly compatible with working on the wikipedia talk page. So however old I am, I'm not so old that they've completely nailed me to my perch .... But yes, I guess I'm probably several notches older than I think of you as being. Then again, I find it impossible not to have a bit of an image of people n my mind when I exchange emails or wiki-messages or whatever. But sometimes those images can be terribly wrong. I was very surprised when your former partner in crime told us how young he was. Then I clicked around his contributions and found he'd uploaded two pictures apparently of himself, and then I thought a bit more and then a bit more and, yes, it made sense that he was unusually (for a wiki-addict) young. I had completely misjudged his age, without really meaning to try and judge it in the first place.

And as you get older you do indeed think more about time. At least I do, though I'm not sure I am unreservedly flattered to be reminded that some of my earlier car pix look like historical records. There aren't so many dimensions around that most people are programmed to understand (or think we understand) intuitively, but time is one of them. I did indeed have a surge of something or other thinking that the little chap in the push chair passing the red Nissan must be around 39 by now. He's had plenty of time to have become a father of ten in his own right. Though I guess since infant mortality at our end of the planet went down so dramatically during the first half of the twentieth century, few people any longer feel the urge even to attempt to become fathers of ten. And yes, on the subject of time I also sometimes catch myself wondering what happened to people in the backgrounds of car pictures and indeed sometimes wondering if they are even still alive. None of us lasts for ever, though there's a bit of a taboo about mentioning it in public: as you get older I think it's normal that you think more about death if only because you are likely to come across it more. I guess the reduction in infant mortality may be part of that change too. Children growing up in Victorian England couldn't avoid coming across death. Now lots of kids - not all, but lots - manage to avoid serious bereavement till well into adulthood. Sorry to be so cheerful. But these are my thoughts right now, so I hope you will not mind that I share them before going to bed. As to my own age, there are by now more than enough clues among my wiki contributions to pin it down pretty precisely, but you should probably have more important and more useful things to do. I'm certainly MUCH too old to go in for all those late nights that so many wiki-contributors seem to favour. Best wishes and sleep well. Charles01 (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicolas Lazarévitch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles01,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 18:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the contact. I really come to this stuff through the prism of translation. My mother-tongue is English but I have a passing-friendly relationship with one or two other European languages as well. These last few years I've been giving many of my wiki-hours to translating "potted biographies" to English. It's a great way to fill in the gaps in my own education, and sometimes - sometimes quite unexpectedly - suddenly and seriously fascinating. I tend to start with entries in German-language or French-language wikis because those two both have quite a lot of articles and I don't need to look up EVERY funny word in order to infer with reasonable confidence what the originator of the text intended. These days I tend to select characters for treatment from my own lengthy list of red links. I start with a random number based selection process, modified/massaged to ensure the selected translation candidates aren't ALL men (i.e. rather than women). Then I boot out the ones concerning folks for whom I can't find a reasonable number of usable online sources and the ones I'm sure will send me to sleep. Though often I find I have to be quite a long way through before I decide I've picked on a particularly interesting subject with lots of good sources and juicy factoids. Or haven't. I don't exactly have a particular interest in the anarchist-libertairan movement, but it's certainly part of all our historical contexts - albeit more if you start with the world according to French-language wiki and it's underlying pre-wiki knowledge base (or Italian) than with German-language wiki. And I don't think I am telling you or anyone anything you didn't already know with the observation that there's far more biographical information "out there" on those on (or beyond) the left of politics than on those on (or beyond) the right of politics. Similar considerations seem to apply in arts, literature and academe and other wiki-prone categories. Smarter folks than I have attempted to answer the question "why?". Anyhow, that would be way beyond the scope of a casual wiki greeting. But yes, thanks for getting in touch and I did manage a couple of pedantic improvements (or...?) on a couple of biographical articles which appear to be currently up for discussion along one of the links to which you kindly directed me. May go back for a longer look around later. Success Charles01 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the canton of Vaud, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Robby (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles,

many thanks for improving my awful grammar and style. Your help is much appreciated. Please, don't hesitate to continue. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks for the reaction. I don't have time (nor technical expertise, nor access to your sources) for a massive overhaul of your interesting contribution. Nor would you (or anyone else) necessarily thank me if I did. But I do know English better than you do. (I hope ... it is my Muttersprache!) So with your encouragement, as here, I may indeed nibble away a bit more at some of the lumpier pieces of syntax over the next few days / weeks / years. Success Charles01 (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will have a good look at it myself, too; there are several quirks that need an improvement. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your corrections to my German translation of Anna Maria von Baden-Durlach Silly of me. Akrasia25 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the thank you. Nice picture of a mug of beer. If only I had the metabolism to drink it without getting a headache.... Also please continue with the good contributions. Please. Success. Charles01 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aurus Senat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bosch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles01. Though you left a comment at WP:AN3 about the photo issue, there is a risk that the post you left there will just disappear into the archives, now that the report is closed. Consider adding your two cents worth at Talk:Toyota Hilux#Photos where I think they are trying to agree on a plan, and they should ideally be getting input from more than just the two original protagonists. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I might. And thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though courtesy of the "tactic" of instantly rambling off-topic at inordinate length I am not suprised that people hesitate to jump in. The thing became impressively incoherent within less (MUCH less) than 24 hours. I did get involved in an equivalent discussion on that same talk-page a few months ago, but it ended up with Vauxford doing what he did (and does) regardless of the discussions. That, as it happens, was my point in my intervention this time. Strangely consistent. Possibly because the conduct only gets more "Vauxfordy". Or am I missing something obvious?

As for your belief that archives are places where things go to disappear .... Well, there are those of us who think that archives are places where things go to be kept. Otherwise, why archives? But yes, those apparently contasting appreciations of the nature and purpose of a decent archive long pre-date wikipedia. And if we're smart, I suppose the technology now gives us hitherto unprecented opportunities to reconcile the irreconcilable through intelligent srategies for accessing the archives and retrieving stuff as and when necessary. Happy days Charles01 (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford[edit]

Hi, I'm Sadads. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Christian Didier, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Sadads (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time it isn't a vanity project! I'm not the only one that does that though, other users has done it and they didn't get frowned upon. The logic I have with using images on other Wikiepdia is that if the foreign users on there doesn't like it, they can happily revert it and I leave them be but rare that anyone does. I swear you guys are just trying to push me over the edge to borderline retirement or worst, I got U1Quattro on my backside and talking to him is like talking to a brick wall and have you constantly making snarky remarks and stuff that isn't true, I'm sick of it! I'm still going to fight my corner regardless and defend my edits are in good faith, I might of slipped up in the past such as with the 1 day block but even so the accusation I got from U1Quattro, telling me that he going get me a "permanent banned" for "misconduct" and trying to use every single word I say against me! I feel like this project is simply a echo chamber haven and you guys simply want me to disappeared just because you don't like the way I edit. --Vauxford (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting - reassuring even - that you state that where "foreign users on there doesn't like it, they can happily revert it". It is a pity that you fail to extend the same respect on English wikipedia. It's revealing that you see nothing wrong in scattering images that you yourself have taken all over what you identify as "other Wikipedia". What looks to me like "vanity project arrogance" is defined not by what you choose to write about yourself, but by the way in which you choose to behave. That, at least, is how it looks from here. If you and EurovisionNim behave badly and degrade wikipedia in pursuit of your private "not a vanity project" you cannot expect people not to notice or not to care about the results of way you both carry on. No one wants you to disappear. But if you could use the temporary exclusion of your former partner in crime as an opportunity to stop treating wikipedia as your own private property, that would represent valuable progress.

I do not know who you have in mind when you write "other users has done it and they didn't get frowned upon." If you mean EurovisionNim he really did get "frowned upon". Especially, in the end, by you. Is memory really so short?

Meantime, you do indeed sometimes appear to be close to the edge of something - "borderline retirement or worst" or ... um ... whatever it is - but neither the cause nor the remedy are likely to be found within wikipedia. It is not fair to wikipdia to inflict whatever it is on the rest of us. Most of us simply don't have the expertise to deal with your unusual approach, especially when, as you like to do, you start writing about yourself. Which is one of several things that make me wonder if it is ever wise to reply to you when you start writing about yourself. But when I do not reply - reply more or less immediately - you choose to take it as an indication of disrespect. But, well ... it does damage wikipedia that you still have not bothered to learn to collaborate, and that matters. And yes, I wish you could bring yourself to recognise it. Is that such a terrible thing? Charles01 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't speak anything but English so communicating with foreign users when under a dispute is really difficult. Seriously, I am not like Nim, if my images really degrade Wikipedia, why aren't I gone? My image do have values I think and people do indeed appreciate it. I can collaborate and it works before, but when it comes to certain tricky users, it goes a different direction. --Vauxford (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to maintain my stance that this is not a personal vanity project and I'm kindly telling you to stop the accusation that it is. I replaced it during discussion because at the last min the picture on the article was a replica and I believe it shouldn't be used in the article. I admit I could of waited until the discussion was over but Eddadio seem to have intentionally avoiding my confrontation. He then suggested a picture which nobody said anything about except me which I said it wasn't a good choice due to it being overly blurry, but replaced it anyway. It seem to me that almost every comments you made on discussion over stuff like this is mostly a personal grief rather then actually contributing to the problem. --Vauxford (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your eye-watering arrogance is not in itself the defining issue. But where it leads to appalling behaviour which discourages collaborative and constructive ccontributions to wikipedia from other people, your behaviour does indeed become "the problem". I am mightily bored with repeating myself ad nauseam simply because your behaviour has not improved and, indeed, since EurovisionNim quit, had become more EurovisionNIm-like / Vauxfordy than ever. Your pictures are not universally terrible, but mostly they are mediocre and you damage wikipedia by refusing to differentiate between the ones that are competent, the ones that are mediocre and the ones that are terrible. You damage wikipedia by replacing inages that are perfectly ok with your own pictures even where these are frequently significantly worse. Before you and EurovisionNim came along people only rarely attached pictures that they themselves had taken to wiki-entries, and only when they were, by most mainstream criteria, unambiguously better than the alternatives. That way, little by little, quality improved and variety was sustained. You guys changed the rules and conventions. Not in a good way. Monotonous messy backgrounds in Leamington Spa have their place, and if all your pictures were brilliant no one would mind - or maybe even much notice - a certain uniformity of approach. But they're not. So yes, that is why I object to the Vauxford Vanity Project. Is your suggestion that your behaviour is just fine and your behaviour is constructive and collaborative? Otherwise why do you insist on dumping your little outbursts of self pity when I do something with which you disagree? I freely admit, I don't understand you at all. And your behaviour just seems to get worse. Please make a special effort and improve it! Charles01 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way how people edit and conventions on automobile articles has changed, I don't think I have become worst, before I used to be a lot worst and reverted people edit that objected me constantly, without discussing it with them but it obviously not right and I got a 1 day block for edit warring. Now when someone disagree with my edit, I do take it to the talk page and discuss it, the problem is other users aren't playing fair, they go and do their own action before anything could be agreed on. What else could I do, I tried to improve my behaviour by discussing rather then rejecting and I still feel like I been duped.

"people came along people only rarely attached pictures that they themselves had taken to wiki-entries" -- That because their was barely any users who was dedicated to that subject, I presume you are talking what the environment on Wikipedia was like back in 2007-2008 and back then any pictures that weren't your scans were either taken by ancient PowerShot cameras or are super tiny for fair-use because there wasn't any pictures in the Commons that they could use. --Vauxford (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't see why this should be taken to my talkpage when you brought this one up yourself and the fact that even when gave my defence in this and telling you I have been improving behavioural wise, you blatantly ignore it and try and move the entire thing somewhere like it not yours to deal with when it clearly is because nobody except you has been making these condescending comments towards what I do. I'm doing my half to try and eventually solve this discord between us, please do your part on it. --Vauxford (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did in your edit at Audi Q3. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Vauxford (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in at least one sense. It should not be necessary to name an individual "contributor" in an edit summary. Unfortunately you have repeatedly made it clear that special rules apply for Vauxford and EurovisionNim. Since - triggered by your complaint on one of the relevant noticeboards - EurovisionNim has been excluded, your own behaviour has become worse. Even worse. If you treat wikipedia as your personal vanity project you damage wikipedia because other contributors with less time and less arrogance than you will simply wander off and do something else. I do not like to see you damage wikipedia and I am frustrated that you think, for your own reasons, that the price is one wikipedia should be happy to pay. I am also mightily fed up with having to repeat myself ad nauseam because you resolutely ignore all polite requests, frustrated urgings, pleadings even, to mend your ways. We should not be wasting our wikipedia time trying to attend to your unique bundle of personal needs. It is not what wikipedia is for. Please - even now - make a special effort. Contribute collaboratively. Success Charles01 (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Location of Deidesheim.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was useful when I set it up, but for the purposes originally intended it has subsequently been superseded by a more wiki-standardised approach. I don't think it does any harm, but if it is getting in your way feel free to delete it. (Do wiki-bots read messages? Hell no .... so why do I bother to write this?) Happy days Charles01 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Vauxford (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to make the Volvo 300 Series article a little better. It still needs a lot of rework, but at least I was able to give John de Vries the credits he deserves, as the original version stated Michelotti. Michelotti was actually quite miffed about DAF turning his design down! I have met John de Vries a couple of times, he is a very friendly man, and can talk for hours about his designs. Brinkie (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you.

I lived in England in the 1980s and never entirely understood the appeal of the Volvo 343 which was included in the top ten sellers for month after month during the late 19780s / early 1980s. I guess the Volvo brand had a reputation for reliability and safety, and the British auto industry was in a terrible mess. Anyway, folks (in England) who owned them seemed to be appreciative of their merits. I don't remember seeing so many in West Germany or France, the other major European car markets, though I seem to have found one to photograph in Switzerland. The Swiss market was always considered especially competitive because all the automakers competed on more or less equal terms. Though away from the cities of the central belt I seem to remember Subaru rather scooped the pond with their affordable four-wheel drive cars.

With wikipedia - especially in the english language version - it's important always to source anything that might become contentioous. I wonder if there is any basic biographical information "out there" about Mr de Vries. Why is he called John rather than Jan? Does he have English ancestors? Or was he just born at a time when English-language names were fashionable? Where was he born? Obviously more on his career would also be interesting. That Volvo 480ES was an influential design. I wonder if he ever gave an interview to Autovisie that could be mined for information.

Just thinking on paper. Feel free to ignore. But thank you for what you have already done. Success. Charles01 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have really no independent source of his bio, maybe I should interview him (I have his e-mail and phone number) and publish that somewhere. But he is really called John, not very uncommon for people who were born shortly after the liberation by Americans and Canadians in 1945.

The Dutch-built Volvos are generally unliked by the fans of Swedish-built Volvo, because the build quality wasn't quite stellar. I know the 300 series has been very popular in the UK, as was the 400 series (especially the 480). In The Netherlands, the 300 series was popular, because it offered like its DAF predecessors a small car with automatic transmission; many people had a driver's license restricted to automatic gearboxes. They kept the 340 with automatic transmission in production until 1991, because there was no 400 series with an auto box available. It also ran great on LPG, which made it suitable for fleet sales. Nevertheless they had a very dull image, generally bought by elderly people, it was a standing joke that a Volvo 340 was always driving in front of the queue. ;)

Also a big thanks to you for uploading all those old slides from old cars when they were new! --Brinkie (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you have the gentleman's e-mail and 'phone number (and the time and willingness to go ahead). It might indeed be worthwhile to contact him.

Wikipedia is full of biographical entries that people write about their chums or colleagues. Nevertheless, where it is obvious and where it takes place on entries that significant numbers of people read, it tends to attract criticism for rather obvious reasons. Entries should be objective. Where there are two versions of truth that the available sources promote with approximately equal weight, then the starting point is that you should normally include them both. (Though bear in mind that some sources are seen as more reliable than others: there seems to be a much debated consensus that several of the less reliable English mass-market newspapers should not normally be used as sources at all. You don't believe it? Did you ever read an English mass-market newspaper?) There is also a presumption against what gets called "original research". Wikipedia should be based on existing sources.

In this case, therefore, since you say Mr de V loves to talk about his work, and is fascinating when he does it, then he must surely have given interviews to enthusiasts with pens, type writers or word processors. Some of them must have been journalists writing for the specialist (or indeed general) press. Some of them must have been people writing books about DAFs. People are interested in DAFs. Ditto Volvos. So an important thing to try and note down, if you do get to speak to him, is the details of the pubished sources to which things about him might be sourced: title, date of publication, author, publisher, page numbers (sometimes helpful), isbn (if book). You won't (normally) get every detail for every source, and you may well get other details that I forget to mention. url is an important one where stuff is online, of course. Of course what he tells you about himself and about his work will most likely be more than worth the visit - if you get to visit him - and will provide important context for anything you are able to contribute to the wikipedia on him. But from the wikipedia perspective, taking the opportunity to write down details of a few sources is important.

Success Charles01 (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That lovely line you mention about "a Volvo 340 ... always driving in front of the queue" (so it must be the fastest car on the road, to spell out the logic), I originally heard in connection with much earlier DAF designs. We have a Dutch born uncle who became a priest and emigrated to Canada. Whenever he returned to NL on a visit he always insisted on renting an old (ever older) DAF: that nice old joke always got rolled out each time he came back to Europe for a visit! Ach, nostalgia isn't what it used be! Charles01 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that they have failed to inform you that they have re-opened the report about you. At any rate, please tone down the innuendo regarding vanity, and so on. I'm sure you can get your point across without resorting to that rhetoric. El_C 21:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to a user's contributions as toxic and delusional is not appropriate. Please do try to be, if not sensitive, careful with your language. Thanks again. El_C 02:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfecly fair. Of course. And, yet ..... Charles01 (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Vauxford (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lisa Mazzone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Cramer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thankyou for your hard work and consistency in keeping the Intertranswiki project running. One of the most worthwhile projects! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nice to be noticed / appreciated! Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your lengthy paragraph, I'm honestly shocked that you suggest I have been abusing multiple accounts. If you really want to know what accounts I use, it this one and Vauxford2 which used to be use for Flickr-to-Commons upload. I am curious of who had the suspicions have me using them. --Vauxford (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles01, I deleted User:Charles01/SandboxVauxford as an attack page. Please don't do that again. If your suspicions are enough for a proper SPI, just do that. If they're not, please just leave it alone. You can't have your own informal SPI report in your user space. El_C 21:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you. I had not appreciated that anyone - as in "Vauxford" - might make a habit of rummaging round in the sandboxes of other folks. But I guess we already know that the fellow likes to do things differently. I wonder what else he found. I have, of course, removed the offending reference in the draft response document. Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wrong. You can't just make such slanderous accusation to someone like that, I wouldn't even do that myself. You making that so-called paragraph about me is a new low. --Vauxford (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your user page and thought the

Wikipedia:Babel
de-5 Dieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch auf einem professionellen Niveau. en This user is a native speaker of the English language.
Search user languages

bit was nifty so I used your page to learn the format to add it to my own, so thanks for that too!

I'm almost certain I formatted that wrong, so feel free to change it!  :) I'm still at the skill level where I can only correct typos really.

Deutschmark82 (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grüß dich as in greetings. Not necessarily in that order. And I'm sorry if I make the wrong choice between Sie und du: You see, this German is not my mother tongue! Parmi les anglophones on ne se tutoye plus!

My user-boxes just come from copying other people's user-boxes. I think that's how it works for most of us. Where it doesn't work (which quite often happens) I simply reverse it and try again three months later. Though quite often if it doesn't work there is an embarassingly low-tech explanation. Like I put in the wrong number of "|"s or "}"s in the right (or wrong) places.

You look as though you think you may be going to have more time to help with Wikipedia in the future. I hope so. There's so much more to be done, as I think you already noticed! Success Charles01 (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

Recent releases[edit]

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

1. Section editing
   • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
   • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
2. Loading overlay
   • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

New and active projects[edit]

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

• Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
• Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
• Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
• Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use.  The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

Looking ahead[edit]

• Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
• Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

Learning more[edit]

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop recreating these in your userspace and just take it directly to AN/I. Thanks. El_C 19:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. Thank you. I should probably write more, but I guess "thank you" probably covers the most of it. Sorry you've been put through this. The draft report has not changed much since you last saw it. (Still unfinished!) So although I know you just can't wait to read it one more time, I'm not sure you actually need to. Your call. Of course. Regards Charles01 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Vauxford (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have translated the German page. Are you sure that the immoral phrase is precize? It says allegedly, doesn't it? I understand that he was forced to leave rather than found himself guilty.Xx236 (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the German wikpedia page was the starting point, though I seem to have found one or two online source notes. More would be good.

I appear to have done this four years ago, and I have no idea what was on my mind at the time, but German wiki currently says "Wegen seines angeblich „unmoralischen Lebenswandels ....". So yes, I appear simply to have translated the sentiment into my version of English, using the text as it appeared in German wikipedia. If further googling yields up a different version, then provided we can present the thing with a plausible source, there is no reason not to correct it. And of course if further googling yields up conflicting versions - not so unusual - and one has difficulty deciding, there is nothing wrong in summarizing both versions and adding that "sources differ".

Do you have a source for your understanding that "that he was forced to leave rather than found himself guilty"? If so, there is no reason why you should not modify the text. Or send me the link if you prefer that I should do it. Otherwise, I may click around with google myself at some point, but ... um ... not today! Success Charles01 (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marta Feuchtwanger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syracuse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Henry Canning is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Canning until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Collaboratio (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, There's a discussion of the Evans' obit at Talk:Norman Stone#Reputation you may wish to comment in. From my perspective, it would be helpful if you could note any sources which rebut Evans' statement regarding Stone groping students. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Norman Stone should be answering your "When did you stop beating your wife?" question. He's dead. And I am in no position to do so on his behalf I have no very strong facts based opinion on the matter. Such opinions as I can muster on it are unlikely to be a million miles from yours.

I have added some thoughts concerning your edits of the Norman Stone entry to the appropriate talk page as you requested. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poland has its law, its culture, even if the Germans wanted to destoy it. You have translated a German nationalistic POV into Polish Wikipedia. What happened to the basic explanation "„Bierut-Dekrete“ ist eine von Vertretern der deutschen Vertriebenenverbände geprägte Bezeichnung für die von der polnischen Regierung 1945 und 1946 erlassenen Dekrete, Verordnungen und Gesetze, die Eigentums- und bürgerliche Rechte der aus Ostpreußen, Pommern, Schlesien und Ost-Brandenburg vertriebenen Deutschen sowie der Volksdeutschen aus dem Gebiet Polens in den Grenzen vor dem 1. September 1939 aufgehoben haben. "Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How you view the Polish government actions and other surrounding events 1945 and 1946 is necessarily defined or at least contextualised by the way you were taught about those events during the first twenty years of your life. Self evidently if you were at school in Warsaw during the 1960s and 1970s you will have learned about a different set of events even from within the same place and maybe quite small time-frame, and you will have been encouraged to look at them through a different set of prisms, from those that would have been included in the curriculum if you were at school in Berlin, Bonn, London, Minsk or New York. Indeed, the differences would have been pretty stark even between how things were taught in Munich and how they were taught up the road in Leipzig. Where governments control the schools, that's a powerful set of influences. And on top of all that schooling comes the inherited knowledge and insight passed through surviving family members. Did you come from a family that thought the Krajowa Rada Narodowa (State National Council) was a heroic or at least necessary homegrown development or from a family that thought it was a well designed tool of Soviet imperialism? I suspect I may know how you might yourself comment in 2019, but in 1979 your 2019 view of those events would presumably have been less mainstream in Warsaw or Krakow. So you should not be surprised if, a generation or two later, those events are differently viewed according to whether your parents (and/or you) grew up in Poland or Germany (or Belarus or England). One of the delights of wikipedia is the opportunity it provides better to see just how folks from different generations/places/tribal traditions have been taught to view history so differently. Not necessarily better or worse or more true or less true. But different. There is no internatationally agreed version of which events were significant, far less of what it all means 75 years later. But if you think the nuances in the German language entry are closer to "objective history" than the nuances in the English language entry, then you should make the changes. Objective history does not exist and never will. But as a great aspiration, I would not presume to denigrate it. Success Charles01 (talk) 07:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, any chance you could transwiki this. the current article is poor and should probably be restarted with a full translation from the sourced German article. Looks an interesting place Gerda Arendt, Bermicourt and Ipigott might be interested, no worries if not though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the entry in English language wiki is soooo very terrible, though it's a bit brief. And I agree it would have been a kindness if the many originators had bothered to pepper it with more source notes. And yes, there are lot of things in there on which I catch myself thinking "I wouldn't have done it quite like that myself..." You too, it appears.

The German wiki entry is a bit on the long side for my taste, but maybe if one got into it further one would come across things to leave out or at least to prune with savagery. There are lots of inline citations - more than one might expect with this type of entry on German wikipedia - but they mostly go back to books that may or may not be readily accessible. Which can be a frustration. The German entry benefits from having been compiled by one person, and has a resulting structural coherence that you don't often find on wikipedia. I like that. On the other hand the scholarly person who drafted it appears to have contributed nothing else to wikipedia. A bit of a labour of love? Or a little project by a bored former curator? I guess once one got into it one might find a certain ignorance of the "rules". Then again - irritating national but well supported stereotyping coming up - German people really do find it easier to understand and see the point of "rules" ("Richtlinien?") than Welsh and English people, I find!

Anyway, without making quite a lengthy start it's a little hard to know just what is involved and just how far it may get. But I'll list it for September. Might even finish it! If someone else gets in first I will not weep. It's a pity Eustachiusz has (like you) more or less retired. On tearing it up and starting again, I think that might indeed be what it would amount to, though I would not myself rush to delete stuff until I was absolutely sure that all useful information was being preserved! Success Charles01 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot of work, don't worry about it. Looks an interesting place though! I'll be aiming to translate a paragaph from a Spanish, French or Italian wiki article 3 or 4 times a week now, 10 minutes a few trimes a week is better than nothing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work. Please note that "painter", "writer", and other common terms are not normally linked on en.WP. An en dash – should be used as a range separator, not a - hypen. See below the edit box for the button. Tony (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I do tend to link "painter", at least in an intro para, because of the ambiguity of the word. There might be readers who think that a "painter" is / was a fellow repainting the Sydney Harbo(u)r bridge, or the neighbour with a steady hand who gets called in to redo the interior paint work if you live in a house with smokers. Or .... it's a wannabe van Dyck. Depends, of course, on taking time to evaluate the context. (And on being deeply familiar with your and my version of the English language or something similar.) "Writer" is ambiguous in other ways and I tend to prefer "novelist", "dramatist" or "poet". But sometimes - as with the example that I think you have in mind here - none of the three is overwhelmingly the focus at the expense of these (or other) others. I will try and remember to look out for the – and the − and indeed the — underneath the edit box. I'd never noticed the characters there before and they look like time savers. Thank you. Still haven't worked out which of those three dashes I "should" prefer for each situation, but no doubt you'll let me know at some stage where I guess wrong! Best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles!

I've got something that has been bothering me on German Wikipedia since June; to come straight to the point: There is a very weird translation from English into German in this German article on La chanson de Jacky (at the very end of the section "Der Text"). An editor claims that the phrase cute in a stupid-ass way contains a pun. He says that stupid-ass means "folly" (in German: Eselei, because he thinks that arse = donkey = Esel) and that it sounds like stupid arse, which he thinks literally means "stupid arse" (in German: Dummer Arsch, as in stupid butt(hole)), but as far as my understanding of English goes, I'd rather say that "stupid ass" means something like "idiot", "stupid person", or "muppet"? I've already had a very frustrating discussion where this editor indirectly acknowledged that there is no source for this claim (apparently, this is original research). I think that you know English much better than me, but you also seem to know German pretty well, so you could possibly have a look at it? I just want to know whether or not the claim makes sense (I reckon it is utter rubbish). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that street-slang in German (or French) is not my speciality. (It changes so fast, from generation to generation!) But I can see what the writer is getting at with "cute in a stupid-ass way" even though his/her mother tongue is most likely some variation of American English and my mother tongue is a version of British English. The pronounciation of "arse" and "ass" is very close in American English and I think I can understand what your correspondent means about the pun. In "Oxford" British English "arse" and "ass" are pronounced more differently, but we hear plenty of American English here in England. In Germany (and I think Austria) American movies get dubbed out of American English and into German. My children used to love the way "The Simpsons" sounds dubbed into German when they picked it up on a German channel. But here in England - as, I think, in the Netherlands, where they can all understand both variations of English with a shaming level of ease - we get the Simpsons in American English and we don't give it a thought.

So yes, between "arse" and "ass" it is reasonable to infer a pun. Most Brits would spot it (or cruise through it) without thinking and without suffering mental indigestion along the way. And I understand the intent behind "cute in a stupid-ass way" and I enjoy the impact of the phrase even though I don't think I would have written it like that myself.

I hope I correctly identify the issues here. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I didn't explain properly what I mean. Seen from an "English" perspective, I can see this pun, yes. But let's imagine there isn't any arse/ass spelling differences: If I get this right, stupid-ass can be used as a "prefix" or "adjective" as in "bloddy" or "shite"? And stupid ass just means "idiot", "very stupid person", "muppet"? Or would you think of different meanings? Would it feel unnatural if somebody took "stupid arse" literally, like if he or she actually thought it meant "stupid butt"? Can stupid-ass/stupid ass translate into "folly"? And would changing the spelling from ass to arse make any difference? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Not simple, and I'm not sure that if there was a war going on I would know which side to back! So I would abstain in the vote. This is a French language song by a francophone, and there is an English language version of it. The "official" English rendering of the line in question, as far as I can make out, is "Handsome, handsome, handsome and stupid at the same time". In the French original the line appears to be "beau, beau, beau et con à la fois". The official English translation is tame by comparison: it does not attempt to deliver the anatomical reference to the English reader. The person writing the wiki entry has substituted an English language version which, in my judgement, better captures the French language original. He has used "ass" (which prompts thoughts of "arse") rather than attempting to incorporate the more directly translated word "cunt" because "cunt" is more offensive to more English readers than "con" is to most French language readers. At least, that is my judgement, though these are neither of them words that I would normally incorporate into my daily conversation. (But I have friends who do!)

To answer directly one of your points, no of course stupid ass is NOT a conventional adjectival phrase. But nor is the usage so remarkable as to damage the understandability of the phrase. There are some details where the German language is more flexible than English language. You can often resequence a German sentences five different ways without damaging the meaning or the poetry of it. English is less flexible there. But in lots of other ways the English language is more flexible than German, and its users (who learn very little grammar in the schools: we used to learn a bit of grammar when we studied Latin and German but these days very few kids in England study Latin or German...) are content to break the "rules" without even noticing that they have done it. So ... in terms of using "stupid ass" as an adjective ... for me, I think "stupid ass" works here. And I sympathise with the fellow who finds the "official" English language translation ("Handsome, handsome, handsome and stupid at the same time") lumpy, tame and inelegant when compared to the French original ("beau, beau, beau et con à la fois"). The more I think about it, the more I think I agree with him. Or, of course, with her. Has s/he come up with the best available solution? No comment. Except I don't have a better idea. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your unsuccinct reply, but I suppose it has got way out of the range of replies that I was looking for. I am not very good at being succinct myself; but I will try my best. You have said that you are not sure whether or not there was some kind of "war": Well, there hasn't been an edit-war, but I presume, the editing that has happend can be called a war. I do not inted to drag you into anything, I am honestly just interested in your native-speaker-opinion. To sum up that "war": This editor has created several articles on songs, and he has clearly used original research; for instance, he has used a song's lyrics as an inline citation for an interpretation of the song's meaning. I presume that this stupid-ass → Eselei (donkey egg?) and stupid ass → Dummer Arsch (stupid butthole?) is also original research (there is no reference for this). This was all part of an "article for excellent article vote". I have given a "strong oppose", which made him say that I have only proven my "ignorance". (Does disagreeing with someone for a very good reason make me ignorant??) But anyways, take a look at the reference section in the diesel engine article and decide for yourself whether or not I know what good references ought to look like.

I have never liked Romanic languages, and I only have a very limited understanding of French. But it is certainly good enough to get the meaning of the original French lyrics. However, the translation from Frnech into English is not the point here. The "English translation" is part of an English version of the song that was performed by American singer Mort Shuman. The writer of the Wiki-entry has taken the lyrics of the English Shuman version, and he has then translated this little piece of lyrics into German. He claims that stupid-ass/stupid ass means something like "Eselei/Dummer Arsch", which translates into English as "folly/stupid butthole" (Eselei can also mean donkey egg), but not the claimed stupid-ass/stupid ass, I reckon? I just wonder whether or not this translation from English into German makes any sense. I really hope I'm not stealing your time here! Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand better, now, where some of this is coming from. But I do not very often involve myself in any "article for excellent article vote" even in English language wikipedia. I would certainly not presume to share my own opinions with too much passion when assessment of an entry auf Deutsch is involved. So many of the underlying assumptions that you bring to your wiki contributions and your interpretation of wiki guidelines are based on things your mother told you before you were five, and of which on a conscious level you yourself are not aware. At least .... that's how it is for me. (Yes, my mother had soooo many strong opinions to share!) Sure we need Richtlinien in order to avoid producing complete garbage. But how to interpret and apply these? I like to leave this to others. I really enjoy and respect the variety of approaches you get in wikipedia. If you apply too many "rules" too rigidly you will reduce the variety, making Wikipedia less fun to read, and drive some of your most productive and committed contributors away. For me it is usually enough that the thing is interesting and that it is true. (What is truth? That is a question for another day, God wot.) I understand the "rule" about original research and I can see the point of it very well. And after living many years in Germany (plus even aa couple of months iin Vienna) I appreciate very well that in Germany and Austria there is more respect for the rules precisely because there is more agreement over what the "rules" should be than we have in England or North America. But if I were King of Wikipedia I would, under many circumstances, enforce guidelines with a carefully light touch! Of course, I am drifting ouy of scope. But this is MY talk page so I can! Oder?.... Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your talk page, and sure, you can write whatever you want. Sorry, I know that "Article for excellent article vote" is a very silly way of expressing the thing I want to express; it is certainly not like featured articles in the English language Wikipedia: On here, there are currently 46 articles nominated, the nomination process is difficult, it takes a whole lot of time, and articles that end up being "featured articles" don't seem to be a mixed bag. On the German language Wikipedia, there are usually not more than five articles nominated at the same time. And the quantitiy of comments on your article (and therefore the result) depend(s) upon the easiness of the topic (and your wikifriends). Articles like "Diesel engine" or "petrol direct injection" are likely to fail because of a lack of votes/comments, no matter how good their quality actually is (in my case, they almost failed). But on the other hand, articles that are utter rubbish are likely to become "excellent", if the creator has a lot of wikifriends.

I spend a lot of time (most likely too much time) "rating" other editors' articles. And I happen to vote "this article is not an excellent article" at times, because I look at things like: Is the article well written? Is it verifiable? is it broad in its coverage? And so on. What annoys me the most about "excellent article votes" (I shorten this now) is the reaction of other editors (wikifriends); I receive replies such as "Oh yes this article is so good" (and I can tell that the person who wrote that has not even read the article), or even better (or worse?) "Johannes says this article is not good, so I have to act as a counterweight and say it is good indeed" de:Special:Diff/192457881. Mate, what exactly is the merit of your comment?

I get frustrated because I spend time writing good articles myself. I was never taught how to properly use English style elements, and I make very awful mistakes at times (often?). What I write must look it was written by a bungler, or at least someone with a very monotonous writing style. I mess up tenses a lot, I guess. And you have seen my attempt to improve the English diesel engine article (and you have corrected so many things I had got wrong). But what I actually want to say here is that I can assure you, that the bloddy diesel engine article (the English one), as it was "improved" by me, including all its grammar errors, is still much better than many of these German articles that were nominated for "excellent article" (maybe that is a way to say it!). Maybe I am exaggerating, who knows, I cannot judge myself, but that is how I see it. I mean, yes, I am being very strict. But I hope you can agree that purposely writing something that is not at all covered by the cited "source", is disruptive editing. And that grammatically incorrect sentences that look like poorly translated English phrases, don't make an article an "excellent article".

I don't want to start ranting. You have still not given me an answer to my initial question, whether or not stupid-ass/stupid ass can translate into German as Eselei/Dummer Arsch. But anyways. We have somehow lost track of what we were talking (writing) about, I reckon? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I admire (and to a considerable extent extent share) your urge to make wikipedia perfect. That makes wikipedia better. But you must have noticed that the more deeply you get into the detail the more you will discover that other people define "perfect" differently from the way you do. Fascinating indeed, but it means that all of the best entries end up looking somewhat incoherent because of the conflicting insights of contributors.

I can - though it is against many of my deep instincts - attempt an answer to your question "...whether or not stupid-ass/stupid ass can translate into German as Eselei/Dummer Arsch" which is both truthful and (at least for me) succinct. My knowledge of the German language (and culture) - and my insights into the wiki and wider context of the wiki-entry in question - is nowhere near complete enough for me to attempt a useful answer to your entirely sensible question. And - since I live in England where everyone keeps apologising to everyone else whether they mean it or not, but here I really do - sorry! Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon you are the first editor who has told me the he admires my urge to make Wikipedia perfect. Yes, I do have this urge. And yes, I have noticed, that, the more I get into detail, the more I discover that other editors have other definitions of perfect. What I have found to be the most frustrating difference in the definition of perfect is how editors deal with sources, and what kind of merit sources have in their definition of perfect. In my definition of a perfect article, all major points are well sourced, and the sources cited are reliable books, that describe the subject well, were published by a decent publisher, and were written by specialists. What I don't like is poor online links of underwhelming quality. And what I really hate is when editors cite sources without even realising that the source doesn't cover the article's subject at all. It makes my toenails furl.

On the other hand, I have found very entertaining contributions, too. You say that you have spent quite a lot of time in Germany, so I presume you know how hilarious Denglisch can be. Most Germans (and Austrians) believe that they speak English very well, but in reality, they do not. You can substract at least one point from every German's English babel in his or her userbox. I don't know English perfectly well, but I don't know Austrian German perfectly well either. You should check out the recent changes in the German de:Fireman Sam article. Someone who possibly doesn't know what a fire engine is translated the intro song's "his engine is bright and clean". The result is ridiculous (or was, I have corrected it). It made me look up the intro video on YouTube, and to my surprise, they have changed the "When he hears the firebell chime" to "when he hears the fire alarm". Apparently, children nowadays don't know the verb chime anymore?

Well, that is a very nice way of expressing that you cannot answer my – frankly speaking – weird and difficult question. Possibly, there is too much background behind it. I tried substracting that, but that doesn't work in this case, I suppose. Anyways, it was nice hearing (reading) from you Charles. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Vauxford (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help[edit]

What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk Pages[edit]

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editor[edit]

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit Cards[edit]

• On 3 September, the Editing team released version 3 of Edit Cards. Anyone could use the new version in the mobile visual editor.
• There is an updated design on the Edit Card for adding and modifying links. There is also a new, combined workflow for editing a link's display text and target.
• Feedback: You can try the new Edit Cards by opening the mobile visual editor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Edit cards talk page.

Toolbar[edit]

• In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
  • One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
  • New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
  • Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
• Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

Wikimania[edit]

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead[edit]

• Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
• Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
• Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Gustav von Schlabrendorf, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. That first pass at a translation / adaptation into English that you came across is far from completed. There are plenty of juicy sources. More than I had intially anticipated. But when I get closer to completing it I will take a closer look at how those templates work.

I do have a bit of a blindspot with templates. It's never quite clear, to me, what they will do! But I am indeed beginning to understand some of the effect of the ones for Project Biography and Project Germany, Project Poland etc.!

Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles,
I allow myself to thank you for your kindness which made me very happy. Thank you for your huge contributions on the subject of vehicles, I enjoy the pleasure of seeing all these known and unknown cars that encourage me to participate in their rankings to continue your work so that your contributions are highlighted and encourage you to offer others.
To the great pleasure of crossing on the big planet of the contribution that is Wikipedia encyclopedia. Best regards, —— DePlusJean (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a delightful message! Thank you. You make me happy, too.

I see that you live in Montpellier. Between 1978 and 1985 I worked in the travel/holiday business, based in London. They paid us very little, but there were compensations. We got periodic "educationals". Somewhere round 1983 my number came up and I was included on an "educational" orgaanised by the French National Tourist Office based at that time at 178(?) Piccadilly, London. (They seem to have moved the shop since then.) It involved visiting holiday destinations in south / south west France: Cap d'Agde ... Toulouse ... Carcasonne ... TGV: Orange à Paris. They took us to Montpellier one evening and we had a wonderful restaurant meal which centred on oysters. At least, my meal did. I don't remember anything else about Montpellier: maybe they drove us round the town for fifteen minutes and pointed out the best bits to visit if we ever came back (or sent paying visitors on package holidays), but all that I remember is that wonderful meal. But it was enough. (I'm quite greedy.) I like Montpellier, even though Wikipedia says it has changed a lot since 1984. Mes meilleures salutations. Also to your fine city .... Charles01 (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edith Barakovich, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New York and Leica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Writers from Nuremberg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arsène Lambert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sedan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles, I was doing some research on thirties' Plymouths and realized that they made a rare small-bore tax special of their four-cylinder engine in 1931 and 1932. 1931 was also when they established a British assembly plant. The skinnier bore of 3+1⁄8 in (79.4 mm) brought the RAC rating down from 21 to 15.6 hp. For 1932 the bore was made a little slimmer yet, down to 3+7⁄64 in (79.0 mm), bringing the tax horsepower rating to 15.47.

My question for you is: do you have any additional info on these engines, such as output?

Secondly, and of more general importance, how were the tax horsepower rounded? Does 15.47 equal 15hp for the taxman and 15.6 equals 16hp? This would explain the re-engineering, whereas if they taxed fractional hp it seems completely pointless. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the last time the Yanks and the Brits went protectionist. Didn't end so well.... Interesting stuff, though, about Plymouth taking trouble to change the engine cylinder diameters in order to penetrate the British market. I have spotted the occasional Plymouth / Chrylser in England from the 1930s at oldtimer fests, but very occasional. I've a feeling they assembled them in Canada for the UK market at one stage, because Canada benefitted from "imperial preference" tarriff benefits. Presumably that was one of the reasons the US automakers set up a sort of mini-Detroit across the bridge over the "Detroit River" at Windsor, Ontario

We do get LOTS of US old timers in England from the 1950s and 1960s, left behind by US squaddies stationed at the airbases where they'd moved in during the 1939-45 war, when they went back stateside. But not too many from the 1930s.

I do not have additional information on these engines, no. I will google it for my own curiosity and if I find anything I will share a link. But I suspect you already tried Mr.Google. Hang on .... here's G.N Georgano, the Complete Encyclopedia of Motor cars 1968 edition .... pages 452-453:

"Plymouth (US) 1928 to date ...

Plymouth adhered to four cylinders until 1933, when the PD-series 6-cylinder was listed at less than $600. 1934 de luxe models had independent front suspension, but this was dropped after a year and did not reappear for some time. The standard engine in the later 1930s had a capacity of 3.3 litres, rather smaller than that used in comparable Chevrolets and Fords: a small bore 2.8-lire vrsion was made for export up to 1939, but the name Plymouth was not usually found on cars sold in England, which were nominally [sic] Chrysler Kew and Wimbledon sixes..." With apologies for the typoes which are (probably) all my own work. There are lots of copies of Georgano around so probably second hand copies crop up on www.abe.com from time to time. I particularly liked the phrase "... was dropped after a year and did not reappear for some time" because it touches on my answer to the next question.

I don't have a source for this, but I am as sure as I can be that British hp values are rounded - probably down - to the nearest whole number. The Brits and the Germans have much in common, but when it comes to precision they are opposite. I remember when we were students we rented a boat on the river. One of us was a German girl, and when someone asked what time it was (the boat had to be back by six) she looked at her watch and solemnly told us it was twenty-one minutes to six (or whatever...). The Brits all laughed at the level of precision. The German could not understand why being accurate was funny. Now that I have lived in both England and Germany I still have the idea that in general conversation a German will give you the most precise answer he easily can provide, whereas the Brit will say "it's about X" or "a little less than Y". However .... when it comes to tax horsepower, I've a feeling that even the Germans used to round it (up). (Then again, I think in Germany they abolished car tax around 1934 in order to boost the auto industry: without car tax, no one really cares too much about tax horsepower.)

I have come across English cars where they used an incorrect tax horsepower as the name of a car, so you get a model called 15 hp when for tax purposes it really was only a 14 hp. One explanation is to define your competition. If your new model is competing against the Standard 8 and the Morris 8 and the Ford 8 you will (would have in the 1930s) called your new model the Choppers 8 even if its cylinder bore meant it was taxed as a 7 or a 9. I think, also, that sometimes a car simply got a name and the name stuck even after they change the engine size. But off the top of my head I can't think of an example for that.

No further thoughts. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just the right length. The six seems to have been 2.6 liters in 1933, from 1934 until 1939 it was indeed a 2.8 liter thanks to a longer stroke. I'll see what else I can find.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles01,

There has been an RfC here which needs close-by an uninvolved user. As you're uninvolved, I am requesting you for it's closure. Its non closure is resulting in an edit war at the BMW M3 page. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered by your request and I will certainly take a closer look at it. A lot of it harks back to discussions that have been rumbling on in the background for many years. Feels like for ever. If there were easy concusions accessible someone smarter and more patient than either of the two of us would probably have landed on them by now. Some interesting points have been made this time round and some good argumments have been put (along with the others). I find, at least at first blush, that I agree with a lot of them - including several that are mutually exclusive.

My own preference with wikipedia is to contribute content that (in my judgement) makes it better. Where I see people repeatedly adding content that (in my judgment) makes wikipedia screamingly worse, I cannot (always) resist the urge to say so. But I do not really enjoy the more political side of wikipedia. I have never closed one of these discussions in my life, and I think if I wanted to make a start down that route (which on balance I really don't) I'd start with something on which my own opinions were less conflicted. As in, something easier to judge.

Never exlude the possibility that I might change my mind, but on this one I think I am unlikely to. I think the discussion you have drawn to my attention might very well be left to run into the sand in its own good time: they often do. But if you have a strong opinion that it urgently needs closure today or, failing that, tomorrow, I would recommend that you ask someone less encumbered by sef doubt than I am. Success. Charles01 (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Léopold Maissin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mick Cash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brentwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Eugen Wiedmaier requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dr42 (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eugen Wiedmaier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugen Wiedmaier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dr42 (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this page obviously looks viable, but if you would please translate the rest of the article, the part that is commented out at the moment, it would look even more persuasive. Geschichte (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I have, in fact, expanded it significantly (and may yet do more of the same) since it was nominated for speedy deletion by Dr42 within two hours of my starting it. But I am disinclined to take too much time with it while it is being actively trolled. There is, indeed, much more to be done! There is an argument for doing the whole thing in a sandbox, but that means no one else will have a chance to make improvements as one progresses the translation. The overwhelming majority of contribtions from other people when one starts a new translation or other entry are, of course, constructive ones. There is no obvious reason to want to discourage them. Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it hurt to use the sandbox to draft the article prior to publication? If you're planning on expanding the article, the sandbox is the appropriate place. This is not an attempt at trolling at all, this was a bona fide attempt to make a good faith effort at judging what I thought was a final product. Regardless, I'll remove the tag since you are still working on the progress of the article. However, I think the sandbox is the more appropriate place for drafting articles. Dr42 (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's what passes for an apology with you! As good as it gets, even. But you do not appear to have read what I just wrote. Let me try and make it really simple. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I am more than happy for you to make improvements before I've finished the translation, which can easily take a whole day. Several days, even. Most people don't have a problem with this. I don't understand why you do. You are not a fellow who likes to explain what's on his mind. Your right. Of course it's a free country. On a good day. (And it depends which country.) Happy days Charles01 (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)the[reply]

Mate, I have no idea what you're on about. There's nothing to apologize for. I removed the nomination and indicated that the sandbox might be the more appropriate place for drafting articles that are unfinished or otherwise unprepared for publication. Have at it, but if I see a non-notable individual that doesn't meet GNG I am going to nominate him/her for deletion. End of. Have a good day. Dr42 (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you included a completely irrelevant {{db-person}} which, because it was not bracketed with <noinclude></noinclude>, caused Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 14 and several other innocent pages to appear in CAT:CSD. Please be more careful. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa (as far as I can tell from what you write)! Sorry you appear to have been inconvenienced and / or troubled. Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heinz Rauch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist Party of Sweden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if we have some work to do, replacing everything you referenced from the 1972 Daily Mail car show supplement.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought which thanks for sharing. I certainly wouldn't trust them on international or domestic politics or politicians. But I think you have to accept that some "facts" are more contentious than others. And when improving sources, the place to start is with the contentious facts. The type of automatic transmission available for a Morris Marina is unlikely to be too contentious (though it's also likely to be easy to source from multiple sources if it becomes contentious). If you write that a particular car was a terrible car - even with a Morris Marina - I would contend that finding a halfway decent source for the opinion becomes more important than the simple assertion that it had four wheels or indeed a Borg Warner automatic transmission as an option extra. Where cars are concerned, there are far more motor magazines accessible online than there used to be. AutoExpress comes up with something usable for most cars as does Auto Motor und Sport. But of course, the Morris Marina was rather a long time ago, from the perspective of now. Still, no doubt judicious googling can take one quite a long way with some of this stuff. Ho hum Charles01 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to wish you a Happy New Year 2020, Charles !!!
To wish you excellent health and happiness, happiness and happiness.

Thank you for all your kindness which accompanies me on a daily basis and gives me the courage to continue the long sorting of cars and other vehicles in the time chronology which is part of the history of the industry. I find this categorization all the more important as it allows us to identify changes and then it will allow us to cross them with the other automobile brands to better understand the history.
Best regards, —— DePlusJean (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heinz Joachim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End of World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ernst Franz Ludwig Marschall von Bieberstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Worms (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Opel 8/40 PS has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG, article provides no evidence of notability, and searching shows none either.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your articles are welcome! Hope you're well!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prod. Yes, I'm more or less well. I hope you're in the good state too. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maria Cäsar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End of World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work you put into Peter Minich! One minor point: I don't think we need to translate names of common institutions, at all, if they have a link and a translation is only a click away for those who really don't know, and once in the theatre's article instead of possibly all artists who performed there. Especially when such a translation is misleading: Volks refers to the common people, rather than popularity, for example. I'd drop them all, but you decide. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought triggers: thank you. I think it depends on the case in point. I am not keen on one-rule fits all solutions, though I know some of our wiki-comrades rather tend in that direction. In this particular case, I think you can argue it either way. Are we just writing for people who know Vienna - possibly quite well - already understand a certain amount of German and have themselves enjoyed a number of performances at the Volksoper? Or are we writing for the interested generalist fluent in Mandarin and competent in English but otherwise unfamiliar with European languages? Well, the obvious answer is "both". And all points in between. The word "popular" in "Popular Opera" means something in English that is both more ane less than the word "popular" in the context of hamburger chains or Toyota light trucks. "Volk" and "popular" are both words that carry a large amount of baggage. For a car nut, when I see "Volk" the first thing I think of is my father's old Beetle or, indeed, a generation later, my Volkswagen Passat in the 1990s. In England, with a choice from more than a thousand years of history, from which to choose, the bureaucrats in charge insist that half the school history curriculum is devoted to five of the twelve Nazi years. It makes them feel good about themselves. (The other half is devoted to the deeds of another - albeit remoter - man-monster about whom the responsible English bureaucrats know even less called Henry VIII.) So in England the word "Volk" makes the kids think of Hitler. Not just the kids. So does the word "People's". Dear Gerda, I had not thought through all this on a conscious level when I chose to translate "Volksoper" as "Popular Opera". But since you set me trying to understand why I translate it as I do, then that is why. I think. Still not persuaded after thinking through what I write for yourself? Then feel free to introduce your own improvements. That's how a lot of wikipedia works. (Though if you can wait another half day till I've finished muy own first pass at a translation, that will avoid the risk of edit conflicts which tend to confuse me where they occur... even though the result is often a simple elimination of typoes or other improvements.) And in your own case - doesn't apply to too many wikipedia contributors - where you introduce changes with which I disagree, I will unhesitatingly respect your opinions! Happy days. Charles01 (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tami Oelfken, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End of World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not insert multiple spaces after the end of a sentence. A single space suffices. And look for spelling errors before submitting an edit. Thank you! jellysandwich0 16:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 

    You inserted a melodramatic as well as quite long message on my talk page. Mentioned were "Maybe they get a day job. Maybe they die. Maybe the two were not mutually exclusive.", "aggressiveness", "rudeness", "a breathtaking absence of empathy", "gratuitously rude", "work on your self-knowledge", "pissing off folks", "hectoring style of the approach and narratives", and "feelings of anger or resentment that I raise up from the surface layers of your inner your (sic) soul". Please reflect on this. 

    At Wikipedia a certain level of quality is expected in contributions, corrections are made when this is absent, and explanations of edits are made and expected.jellysandwich0 17:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 

I had been about to provide a cogent reply to your earlier contribution (now) a couple of paras up. But from your latest contribution here I get the impression that you're not listening! Maybe I'll get to it later: maybe not.

Meanwhile I can't help wondering why you here indent your contribution like a geriatric with a type writer, therefore ending up with your contributions appearing in the courier font. It makes them stand out. Maybe that's what you want. But I don't think it makes them stand out in a good way. If I enjoyed telling other folks how to do stuff I would respectfully request you to avoid this disruptive and distracting piece of eccentricity. But actually, I don't think it matters. Much.

Also, have a nice day, dear wiki-comrade.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Johann Balthasar Schupp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oratory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles who is the owner of the 1939 Vauxhall I type. I am trying to find him as my father and built the car from chassis up in the late 80s and I'd like to purchase it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.170.225 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know which car you mean. Do you mean this one? Otherwise please tell me which one you mean by providing a fuller description or (which would be better still) a link.

I do not know who owns the car in this picture. I think, from the date and the background, that I must have photographed it at Woburn (somewhere between Bedford and Milton Keynes and just off the M1) in the parklands surrounding the stately home at an oldtimer show which, in those days, was an annual event at Woburn over the first bank holiday weekend in May.

From this website I just found that the car is still registered for road use in the UK. That means the owner's identity (or at least the identity of the "registered keeper") will be known to the car tax office in Swansea known affectionately as the DVLA. However, unless they think you're a policeman I don't think they're allowed to tell you. Since it looks well maintained and is older than most people still alive, it may well also belong to someone who is a member of a Vauxhall enthusiasts' club. You might check out the Vauxhall owners' Club. Even if they do not know the answer to your question about the ownership of whichever Vauxhall it is that interests you, they may very well be able to suggest someone else whom you should ask.

Success Charles01 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Herta Leistner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denkendorf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]