User talk:Charles01/Archive 44

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter Fabian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest‎

Hi, can I tempt you to participate? If you don't liek prizes you can always contribute to the main list and not worry about sourcing "rules". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the alerts. No objection to prizes (tho' at some point that could convert to payment for wiki-contributions which might give rise to "tender conscience" issues), and I think my translated biographies are sometimes of people whose names appear on the WIR "gaps list". I'll take a look and try and figure out whether the "contest rules" are consistent with what I get up to on wikipedia. A lot of the potted-biog entries I currently translate do concern women - certainly more than the current 17% "baseline" figure, though probably, at least in most months, not above 50%. Success Charles01 (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Rootes group category

Hi. My edit on Humber Limited was not intended as vandalism. Of course I know that Humber was part of the Rootes group. It was just that, since the page is already in the Category "Humber vehicles", which is included in the Category "Rootes vehicles", which is in the Category "Rootes group", I find it redundant for the article to be in both categories at the same time. But it's not a big deal, whatever. El monty (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I usually try and avoid discussions about categories. We are all of us hard wired to try and create order out of chaos and in the wiki context putting things into categories is part of that. But the realisation quickly dawns that each of us creates order in different ways, applying a unique logical structure and set of preconceptions that for all I know was created in each of the relevant wombs. Especially when it comes to "hierarchies" of categories. It's like when someone else helpfully "sorts out" my filing in the office and I can no longer find anything, but that's a digression too far. Either way, it's clear that folks are easily upset by the discovery that each of us thinks differently about which boxes to put stuff in I am left with the simpler belief that where wikipedia is concerned the more categories a page is in - provided the category is objectively correct/appropriate (ah, yes ....) - the more likely it becomes that the entry will be found by someone who is looking for it (regardless of whether or not (s)he knew (s)he was looking for it). That, for what it's worth, is my own logic. But it's more than I can fit in an edit summary narrative. Success Charles01 (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

and, between and

Wilma Landwehr What do you mean?Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean between 1950 and 1971. But you're welcome to get in first if you have useful stuff to contribute! Happy day Charles01 (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Charles01. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emma Herwegh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posen (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) 11:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ellen Marx (human rights activist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shoa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

You are never, well mayhaps I should say rarely given that never is such a finite term ;), redundant or fripperous. Your comment actually made me smile, even if I was suffering from a lack of adequate caffeine. I adore that you keep me on track and right my erroneous typographical nonsense. SusunW (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Alas, I don't think I know what frippery is. I guess if I was a scholarly type that would most likely send me to the dictionary. However, if I were that scholarly I would probably avoid using words I do not understand, even in edit summaries (and only contribute at most a couple of hundred words of carefully considered prose on a good day). Hrrrumph etc. On a slightly serious note, there are sometimes good reasons to include hidden messages in wiki pages, but there are other occssions when they simply get in the way, I think Charles01 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Now what would the fun of that be? Hidden messages, like errors in general, are opportunities to learn. We rarely learn anything from the multiple times we show our mastery of a subject, but should we bungle something badly, we are likely to remember and discover what might be best avoided in the future, or at the very least given fresh perspective. SusunW (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You're in danger of making me think, now. Scary stuff. But being "likely to remember" ... that sounds like an excellent aspiration. And no one - finite term or not, and at risk of sounding like my mother - should argue against fresh perspective. At least, in theory. Charles01 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Additions to German Wikipedia

After understanding the COI policies better I feel more comfortable asking this favor. I'm petitioning to publish Bottega Veneta from English into German. I was wondering if you have time to help me out. I have a paid COI regarding Bottega Veneta, but my main concern here is ensuring that the information available in English is up to date in German as well. I have a translated version of the article on SandboxDE. Would you mind reviewing it for accuracy as well as its compliance with Wikipedia guidelines? Thanks!--Chefmikesf (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow ... as in, noted. I'll try and find time to take more af a look over the next few days and will share any reactions if I think they might be useful

* On COI I suspect you are far better informed on the issues, as they affect your own situation (and probably also more generally) than I will ever be. Please infer no opinion from me on that! On wiki guidelines more generally I am familiar with the ones I come across, but I grew up in a what was at the time viewed as a common law jurisdiction and am likely to be less instinctively "rules based", and more inclined to defer to "custom and usage" (except where it "looks" plain wrong) than German speaking readers who might come across your work on German wikipedia. Apart from the odd typo, I do not contribute significantly to German wikipedia. My German is not up to it.

* On first blush I find your German beautifully easy to follow. But if we both have versions of English as our mother tongues, then I guess that is to be expected. Anyhow, till now I really only looked at your work on the screen of a telephone while trying to defer getting out of bed. It deserves a slightly longer look. Maybe over the weekend and certainly not before I've had my first coffee for the day.

* German wiki is far less fixated on inline citations than English wiki as you clearly spotted. (ditto French wiki, Italian wiki ...) I guess those guys trust each other in ways we anglophones no longer do if, indeed, we ever did. But don't get me wrong: wiki-source notes are good. I don't plan to click through on all yours, but it's great that they're there!

* It appears from your syntax that English is your mother tongue. I don't think you dream too often in German. Frankly, however, your German is much better than mine. But I still know enough to come across places where I feel in my waters "that's not how a German speaker would put it". If you ever get a chance to pass this text under the nose of someone living in Lugano or indeed Luzern - places where the city folk have twenty years experience of flipping between 2,3 or 4 languages before they even leave college ... But that's not necessary for it to look good in German wiki. To me it looks fine, (tho' I haven't yet finished squinting at it as I write this).

* I don't think I have any showstopper thoughts. If you will go ahead it will be interesting to see what improvements German wiki contributors will come up with, but presumably over time them will 'cos that's how this thing works. I did set up a page pasting your German language and the English language paras on the same sheet in order to make comparison a bit easier, and I added a few heckles. In the old days they would have been pencil notes in the margin but that was then .... Anyhow, I don't think they'll radically change what you've done and nor should they. But in case interesting here they are. Feel more than free to ignore.

Success Charles01 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Charles01 (talk)Thank you for your assistance on this project. Would you be willing to publish this sandbox? I trust your abilities and instincts on this project. The comments you provided here are insightful. Chefmikesf (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad if you find it helpful. I found it interesting. I will be interested to see what happens when you go live with the expanded German language entry on wikipedia.

I do not understand what you mean by "publish this sandbox". Or why you ask. Maybe I misunderstand your meaning here. But assuming you mean what I think you mean:

• You are very welcome to copy and paste this wikipedia sandbox page to a page in your own wikipedia sandbox. And of course you are welcome to integrate my thoughts into your final entry. (Or to ignore them all.) And if you have a colleague working with you on this entry, you are welcome to pass her or him a link to the relevant wikipedia sandbox page.

• BUT the page is not intended by me for wider distribution and I do not understand why you should wish to publish it more widely. If I had intended it for wider publication I would most likely have set it up quite differently. So no permission or consent, either express or implicit, from me that you "publish this sandbox", except as described in the previous paragraph.

Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Charles, sorry for the confusion. When I asked "Would you be willing to publish this sandbox?" I just meant post it on the German Wikipedia. Because of my COI, I'm very strongly discouraged from directly editing articles with which I have a conflict of interest, and so I need to gather consensus from other editors. It's difficult to find editors who are willing to review my suggestions in this regard, and even more so when they're in another language! Again, I trust your German skills, and think your suggestions are good ones. Please let me rephrase my earlier request: do you think these changes are appropriate to make to the existing German article, and if so, could you implement them on my behalf?Chefmikesf (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Noted. At least now I understand the question, I think. But as you must have noticed, I have not rewritten your draft. I have simply added one or two comments and suggestions. Even if I replaced your text with my suggestions it would still be 98% your draft. So that for me to try and pass it off as my own would be plain wrong on various levels, including but not restricted to moral, legal and practical ones. No doubt, if you have an obsessive interest in wiki-guidelines, it would also run counter to a few of those (although whenever I have tried, in the past, to master a wikipedia guideline, I have found it so hedged about with qualifications, exceptions and biblical ambiguities that I lost the will to persist).

Your determination not to breach wikipedia's COI guidelines is commendable. Whereever I have come across COI issues - and become concerned by them - it has been where someone I used to work with or back in the mists of time with whom I was "educated" has written a narcissistic entry about themselves, apparently in the hope of improving their career prospects and/ or as a sop to their flatulently bloated self-regard. I have even been known to kick up about it. However, the examples I have in mind tend (1) to be so obvious that any reader taking them at face value (almost) deserves to be duped and (2) to involve pages that get maybe six "hits" a month. Clearly I should have worked or gone to school with more celebrities than I did, but generally where it happens with even slightly "famous" people, there will be plenty of other wiki-people on hand to correct it.

Your own position with regard to potential COI issues is very different, as I understand it, but if you are inhibited from your employment-related COI issues from contributing a wiki entry on a given subject, and where what is involved is little more than a translation job, then presumably you can ask someone else to do the translation. If, when they've done it, you find stuff that is factually wrong, then it is not necessarily impossible that you will enter a two/three word factual correction, properly sourced, and as long as you don't go overboard any COI concerns will be minimal. And provided you ask someone to translate it into their mother tongue the result will probably be better - even better - than your own translation (or mine) would be. Though having taken the time to do the translation as an exercise on your own account will enable you - gimlet eyed - to notice if something has squeezed through that is objectively wrong. With any luck, too, the exercise has helped expand and enhance your own product related knowledge.

Success Charles01 (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Charles, I appreciate the effort and care you take on Wikipedia. I understand the myriad guidelines for Wikipedia and actively working to get this content published most ethically. My sole interest is to provide the information to all languages that the brand represents. I face some challenges as a COI editor on the English Wikipedia, the first of which is finding editors who are even willing to talk to me in the first place. The additional challenge of finding editors that can also translate into specific languages makes collaborating with willing translators even more difficult. How would you suggest presenting the draft or be integrated into the German Wikipedia? Chefmikesf (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how the COI guidelines apply to your situation in English Wikipedia and I certainly don't understand how they would apply on German Wikipedia, where guidelines and the community's interpretations of them are likely to be interestingly different. But I think, as indicated already in my earlier comments, that if the situation is as it appears from what you write of your earlier experiences, you should not start from here! Sorry if that sounds like a piece of irksome smart beepery.

What you appear to be looking for is not an expert on your specialised subject, but a competent translator into German of an existing entry in English (or - from memory so might be wrong - possibly Italian). And for that you should normally find someone with mother tongue (or near mother tongue) German. You might be able to find someone by looking at relevant project group pages on German wikipedia. I'm afraid I don't frequent these, but presumably they work much the same as they do on English wikipedia. Or you might venture outside the wiki world and find some smart kid at school or university in central Europe looking for a translation exercise. There are FAR more people in Germany (possibly more also in Switzerland or Austria) with excellent understanding of English than there are in England with excellent understanding of German. That's always been a problem for the English politicians, and one of which most of them are blissfully unaware. Either way, if a mother-tongue translator does the "heavy lifting" of the wiki entry that you're calling for in terms of quantity, I can't believe you should be prevented by COI concerns from subsequently correcting any small residual factual errors - especially provided you can appropriately source the corrections.

Success Charles01 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Reichsgau Wartheland

Not South Prussia.Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Vauxhall Viscount first registered May 1972 3300cc.JPG

Hi Charles, My friend owns the Vauxhall Viscount 3.3L that you photographed (your file ref is posted above) at Knebworth House in 2009.

I'm hoping to incorporate your (unaltered) photograph in a gift I'm intending to have produced, to hopefully ease his post-operative recovery.

I believe you've very kindly released the image into the public domain, but I was wondering (providing of course that you have no problem with me downloading and using your image) if you would like to be credited in the resulting image?

I will not reproduce other photographer's work without their express permission.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.161.102.68 (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a rare beast, these days. And well loved, to judge by the picture. I rather like it (the picture). I guess these days I like the car a lot too, tho back in 1965 or even in 1972 it would have seemed a tad ... um ... overstated. I think the Queen of England maybe drove around in a Cresta PC based estate (con)version around that time when no one (much) was looking. I dimly recall that the then Earl of Bradford had one of those too.

Of course I'm flattered that you want to use the picture as you indicate and more than happy for you to do so. You should try and make sure you have read and understood whichever wiki-licensing standard para it ended up with, but to the best of my knowledge and belief there are no problems. If you wish to attribute it to "Wikipedia Contributor Charles01", that's fine by me. If you wish to leave it unattributed, that's fine by me too. There are plenty of "my" wiki photos of cars floating around online without any sort of attribution, and whenever Mr Google takes me to one, it makes me feel a little scintilla of smug pleasure. But I very much appreciate that you ask. Very much. And of course I hope that your friend will find all the strength necessary to emerge unblemished the other side of whatever it is "they" have been doing to him.

Success with Project Gift. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks very much Charles. Yes, I believe Her Majesty had a Cresta Estate for personal use many years ago. My friend has been a life-long fan of the classic Vauxhalls - his Father owned a Victor when we were kids. In addition to his Viscount (and VX490 parked behind the blue one in your photo) he also drives a "modern" Vectra. Best wishes.

212.161.102.68 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2018

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the English Wikipedia • Subscription list for the multilingual edition

Did you know?

Did you know that you can now use the visual diff tool on any page?

Sometimes, it is hard to see important changes in a wikitext diff. This screenshot of a wikitext diff (click to enlarge) shows that the paragraphs have been rearranged, but it does not highlight the removal of a word or the addition of a new sentence.

If you enable the Beta Feature for "⧼visualeditor-preference-visualdiffpage-label⧽", you will have a new option. It will give you a new box at the top of every diff page. This box will let you choose either diff system on any edit.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

In the visual diff, additions, removals, new links, and formatting changes will be highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

This screenshot shows the same edit as the wikitext diff. The visual diff highlights the removal of one word and the addition of a new sentence. An arrow indicates that the paragraph changed location.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode, which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and improving the visual diff tool. Their work board is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

• The 2017 wikitext editor is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. It has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. The team have been comparing the performance of different editing environments. They have studied how long it takes to open the page and start typing. The study uses data for more than one million edits during December and January. Some changes have been made to improve the speed of the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual editor. Recently, the 2017 wikitext editor opened fastest for most edits, and the 2010 WikiEditor was fastest for some edits. More information will be posted at mw:Contributors/Projects/Editing performance.
• The visual diff tool was developed for the visual editor. It is now available to all users of the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor. When you review your changes, you can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. You can also enable the new Beta Feature for "Visual diffs". The Beta Feature lets you use the visual diff tool to view other people's edits on page histories and Special:RecentChanges. [1]
• Wikitext syntax highlighting is available as a Beta Feature for both the 2017 wikitext editor and the 2010 wikitext editor. [2]
• The citoid service automatically translates URLs, DOIs, ISBNs, and PubMed id numbers into wikitext citation templates. This tool has been used at the English Wikipedia for a long time. It is very popular and useful to editors, although it can be tricky for admins to set up. Other wikis can have this service, too. Please read the instructions. You can ask the team to help you enable citoid at your wiki.

Let's work together

• The team is planning a presentation about editing tools for an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting.
• Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and other communities may have the visual editor made available by default to contributors. If your community wants this, then please contact Dan Garry.
• The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. This has already been enabled at the English Wikipedia. If you want columns for a long list of footnotes on this wiki, you can use either <references /> or the plain (no parameters) {{reflist}} template. If you edit a different wiki, you can request multi-column support for your wiki. [3]
• If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

—User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

German Barnstar of National Merit

	German Barnstar of National Merit
	I award you the Barnstar of Merit for WikiProject Germany for your work in the project. I've seen your name associated several times with some good-quality work in the area of Germany, and I think it should be recognized. Sehr gut! Vami_IV✠ 06:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Um ... thank you much for noticing and (since it's positive) for sharing your reaction. Success Charles01 (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Pamela Lane

Thanks for adding PL's obit to the John Osborne page. Absolutely appropriate. Stu (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing and (since it's positive) for taking time out to share your reaction. I still don't understand why she's seemingly the only one of John Osborne's many wives without her own wiki-entry. She's been featuring on talk radio here in England this week, and yesterday while I was putting summer wheels on the car I actually stopped to listen. (I have the radio on in the background permanently, but stopping to listen is something else.) Anyhow, now we've been hearing her name on the radio over here, maybe someone will be moved to make a start. The Guardian obit might be a reasonable jumping off point. But .... no pressure! Success Charles01 (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iris Radisch, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ARD and Camus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well-rounded

Cool new picture on your user page. I find it hard to believe there was an artist called Ms Plump but - if you say so. ;-)) Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Splendid name indeed.

The Espace must still have been very rare then. It must have been September 1984 when I joined my parents by train for the end of their annual "two week foreign holiday". Last holiday "en famille" before my father died. My work then involved generous allocation to the company of international rail tickets which colleagues tended to shun because they preferred to travel by air to beach resorts. (We were younger then ...) But it says in Wikipedia-en they only sold 9 Espaces in July 1984, and the auto-industry then generally shut up shop each August to retool for the new model year. But the Espace was assembled at that time by Matra who were presumably more "artisanal" in their approach than you would get in a 'standard' Renault plant driven by the requirements of a high-volume assembly line. Whether or not the actual sales volume quoted in wiki-en is correct, I do think they "ramped up" production of the Espace quite slowly. The Plymouth Voyager had been around across the Atlantic since 1983, but here in Europe the "people carrier" concept was very novel, and Matra weren't used to Renault levels of "volume production". And yes, I am for that and other reasons moderately proud of that picture. >33 years ago .... tiens!

Good to hear from you Charles01 (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Eugen Ochs

It's a stub,, till 1934.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

More input needed and more will come! Feel free to contribute. Charles01 (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

Appreciate your fast review and feedback on my edit. Since I'm quite new to Wiki it's good to see that there are actually people watching and responding. If there's anything I can improve - happy to learn from you! All the best from Germany, Jörg Ruhri Jörg (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Um ... good. Enjoy contributing to wikipedia and thank you for doing it. And yes ... you never know when someone will notice. On English wikipedia you can go to the "Revision history of "Christine Bergmann"" (click on the "View History" tab) and then click on "Page view statistics" to see how many people open a page each day. Sometimes this is encouraging: sometimes not. But maybe you noticed that already. On what to improve, you just need to read entries that interest you and notice - often subconsciously - what works and what doesn't. Beyond that, if you inadvertently breach any Richtlinien (1) someone will probably tell you and (2) most guidelines are open to interpretation and many contradict each other, so really your most reliable critic is likely to be you. Success. Charles01 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

1968 VW 411 picture

Hello Charles01, may I please use your 1968 VW 411 picture (white 4 door car) in a VW history book I am writing? Thanks. Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbert82 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. You should make sure you have read and understood whatever it says under "Licensing" on the page in question, but to the best of my knowledge and belief there are no issues. I'm afraid it was produced with a rather basic camera and the picture does not benefit from being enlarged, but I guess the quality is ok if you keep the picture relatively small. Those early 411s - before they switched to twin headlamps - were never big sellers even in West Germany. I think the next year when they fitted twin headlights AND fuel injection they sold a bit better. But sadly the poor old 411/412 never really captured the spirit of the times. Me? The first time I could afford a new car it was a Passat. I wish you every success with your project. Charles01 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Climax CR1

Hello Charles, I been meaning of creating a article of a recent obscure car manufacturer called Climax. It was designed and produced by Coventry Graduates and inspired by the racing Cooper Climax in the 1950s. There was a showroom in Warwick which I photographed and uploaded onto the Commons.

It was first a concept car back in 2007 but I think they made a production version of it. They even have it own shownroom which I photographed (below) at the time. (The building itself was demolished). Not much information have surfaced after 2015. I presumed they went bankrupted and shrouded in obscurity.

My problem is that I never done a Wikipedia article before like how to lay out stuff and cite links which I already got as well as owning a physical brochure of it. May I ask if you could help with it or at least give some tips of creating the article that fit to Wikipedia standards.

I have made up a word document with a list of links that mention about the vehicle including archived links although I done it on Google Docs. --Vauxford (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll look forward to reading what you come up with. I remember Cooper-Climax as a name from when I was a kid, but I don't really remember anything beyond the name.

Never having done a wikipedia article before does not need to be a problem. It is, after all, something that every wikipedia contributor has been through, and most seem to emerge the other side none the worse for the experience. Just make sure you have a couple of verifiable sources. The wiki-word-processing thing is designed so that even computer barely-literates such as myself can use it. Don't let the jargonistas scare you off. (I still don't know what they mean by "template", though it's a usual enough word in the world outside. And they do love their obscure wiki-acronyms.) Just as with every new word processing programme or spreadsheet programme that you get thrown at you, each one has its own quirks that you get used to by using the programme. Or has Bill Gates so monopolised the world of application software that these days no one ever has to get beyond Microsoft Word and Excel? That's why they're so expensive. I vote for Open Office! Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Charles01: How do I source information from a brochure? I own a brochure of the vehicle I got from the showroom before it ended up abandoned and demolished and has some technical information that I couldn't find on the internet. --Vauxford (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It depends what information you have on the brochure.

Also there are different ways of doing source notes. Mine isn't automatically always the best, but generally it works for me.

One of the source notes on this article references a brochure. You might copy and then adapt the format. But where you use a brochure as a source it's a good idea to try and find other sources which are a little less ,,, um ... commercially motivated as well. But yes, simply for dimensions and other non contentious factual stuff on specification a brochure can be a useful source. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That will come in handy. --Vauxford (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The notice at the top of your userpage!

Quick suggestion! What if you put something like this:

It might be easier to read! Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Three messages on my talk page in the space of an hour. Are the gods conspiring to keep me from checking my emails or watching television? But thank you for the suggestion. Let me see ..... Yes, that seemed to work. Thanks again. And since you're in a helpful mood, what do wikipedia contributors mean when they use the word "template"? I catch myself using the things without really having much clue about what they are or why they work. (when they do...) Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia tends to get like that some times. Take a break! It helps.

No problem for the suggestion. I just thought it might make it easier to read and make your talk page a little more colorful.

This is a quick overview of templates if you're curious. Templates have a variety of functionalities. For example, they can be used as a way to represent blocks of text that can be edited from one central location. Let us say I create User:Charles01/Have a good day and put {{User:Charles01/Have a good day}} on multiple pages. Now, I want to add a smiley face at the end of my message. The good thing is that I only have to add the smiley face to User:Charles01/Have a good day and not all of the other pages that I added {{User:Charles01/Have a good day}} to. Does this kind of make sense? In the case above where I customized the caution template for you, that template allows me to have all of the cautionary box jazz, i.e. the box, background color, exclamation symbol photo, etc., without writing it all out myself everytime. I "pass" in my message as a parameter to the template, and it puts all of the other formatting around my text (that's a way to think about it). Hopefully, that makes some sense! Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This points me in some helpful directions. Thank you. Though I think I still have more ... thinking to do. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Surely! It's all a process. Reach out if you're stuck or need anything. --JustBerry (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate procedure

Hello. I noticed that you created the article Céleste Albaret, and on looking at your contribs, I see that you have created quite a few articles recently. While that's very commendable, I see that you have begun in each case by changing existing links. Your edit summaries state red link which I plan to blue shortly. You should not be changing links to point to your new articles until they have been created, because your articles may fail notoriety and be deleted, making your link changes inappropriate. Kindly wait a few days after creating articles to make sure that they don't get speedy deleted. Akld guy (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

hey Charles...

...i would like to get a "friendly advice" too:

how to handle the it_wiki-version ?? (in the beginning it seemed to be a suitable translation, but it changed step by step into the nowadays "it:Hildegard Burkhardt")

i would start with a move (at least to "Felizitas Beetz") as the relevant name - even for Italy. Hildegard Burkhardt was not at all of encyclopedic interest! her role in history started as "Hildegard Beetz"; she was already married when the Ciano-papers came to the state of international interest... its like the americans would insist on the lemma "Hilde Blum", just because of their special interests...

please answer by personal wiki-email, or on de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Najadenn if possible!

thanx and lg, ulli p.--NBarchiv (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

(answered elsewhere Charles01 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Mauthausen concentration camp prisoners has been nominated for discussion

Category:Mauthausen concentration camp prisoners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Catrìona (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Your recent biographies of women

Hi there, Charles. In connection with our Women in Red Monthly achievement initiative, I've been looking through the women's biographies created since the beginning of the month. I see you have added Eugénie Droz, Gisela Glende, Annie Leuch-Reineck and Luise Meyer-Dustmann, all well written and informative. These would be great examples to add to our Monthly achievement listings. I would be happy to add them myself if you have no objections. Better still, you could list them yourself and help to inspire more attention to women on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted. And thank you: "... well written and informative ..." is a bit of a variable feast, I fear. I like to blame the sources. But no doubt the state of the compiler-translator's digestion also has a part to play.

* You are always welcome to add to monthly WiR listings any biographical entries that I kick off.

* On "Better still, you could list them yourself...", I mentioned before to someone - might have been Dr.Blofeld - that the curmudgeon in me insists that my necessarily limited time and talents are better devoted to "wiki-editing" than adding to ever more lists. Though lists can indeed have a certain beguiling therapeutic quality. And you may well think that the curmudgeon in me should stay in his box with all the other toys, but alas it doesn't always work like that.

* One that does deserve a listing more than some is Hilde Purwin. I never know, till after starting, how many more sources I will find as I go along, but this lady has a lot of good sources - including some in English - and more than one tantalising tale to tell. There's even talk of an unpublished autobiography, elements of which I think may have crept by indirect routes into some of the sources that have already made it to the computer screen. When I look at what I made of it, some of the joins between the differently sourced bits are more than a little clunky. But still, whether seamlessly joined or not, a lot of good sources. Then again, I started that one in June. I don't know if the Richtlinien allow for retrospective listing.

* I do - without having given too much thought to the underlying philosophical-political aspects - completely share the objective that a higher proportion of the wiki biographical entries should focus on women. Whether it would or should ever make it to 50%, given the availability of the sources and the way historical notables have been identified through the ages, I tend to doubt, but there's still plenty more scope for moving in the good direction from where we're at right now, and I have indeed been trying to play a part in that over the past couple of years.

Success Charles01 (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Daimler 250

@Charles01: Hi Charles, a few days ago I made some edit on the Daimler 250 article page. One of the edit was replacing the infobox image to a more higher quality and standard picture. Eddaido disagreed and reverted the edits and we are trying to reach a consensus. Would you mind joining the discussion on the Talk:Daimler 250? --Vauxford (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elisabeth Zillken, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Socialist Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscription list on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.

You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.

Remember to publish your changes when you're done.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.

Recent changes

• The Editing team has published an initial report about mobile editing.
• The Editing team has begun a design study of visual editing on the mobile website. New editors have trouble doing basic tasks on a smartphone, such as adding links to Wikipedia articles. You can read the report.
• The Reading team is working on a separate mobile-based contributions project.
• The 2006 wikitext editor is no longer supported. If you used that toolbar, then you will no longer see any toolbar. You may choose another editing tool in your editing preferences, local gadgets, or beta features.
• The Editing team described the history and status of VisualEditor in this recorded public presentation (starting at 29 minutes, 30 seconds).
• The Language team released a new version of Content Translation (CX2) last month, on International Translation Day. It integrates the visual editor to support templates, tables, and images. It also produces better wikitext when the translated article is published. [4]

Let's work together

• The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website. Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
• The Community Wishlist Survey begins next week.
• If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Great article-improvement in Fritz Selbmann! Keep it up! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 11:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. Metaphorical pie probably healthier than the ones that get eaten. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Charles01. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your vocabluary

Hi Charles01, Thanks for being such a nice person with the edit revert. My name is Nim, as if you want to know who I am (I want users to address me by my actual first name than 'EurovisionNim').

Just on a side note, what do you mean by "...Unencumbered by EurovisionNim's blindspots concerning reflections and backgrounds..." "...done much to degrade wikipedia in the last couple of years..." Whilst I totally agree with your edit, I'm not an academic, so would it be possible to simplify it down for me please. Also can we work together along with Mr.choppers to make Wikipedia the best place possible !! Take care, and happy editing --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the best place to discuss the image in question is on the page in question.

I address you by your user name. I was unaware that you wished to be addressed by a different name. Naturally I apologise in respect of any discourtesy that you infer from my having addressed you by your user name. I'm still confused that you want us to use more than one name for you, though. Um .... what is the point?

Your wiki-contributions more generally can speak for themselves. And do. Your own talk page - and your contributions to Vauxford's talk page (and no doubt elsewhere) also tell their own tale. I do think that cumulatively you have blindspots (we all have blindspots) and the way in which you have inflicted your blindspots on wikipedia has cumulatively degraded it. That bothers me. My opinion. You do not have to share my opinion. But you might perhaps do well to think about it! With all due respect...

Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The username issue is not the important one at this stage. You can call me either EurovisionNim, or my actual name Nim. I prefer the latter, but if you wish to call me otherwise by username thats fine for this. If this was Facebook or something, then it'd be a problem. Best --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Better example. (I'll get Vauxford onto it)

Hi Charles01, It may have been 2 months since I last made a revert on my image, but I want to bring up a discussion. Vauxford believes his Audi image would be the better example to mine because his was taken at a car dealership and therefore his would be the better example. Two months ago we had this discussion that based our discussion on which of the three were better examples. I was deadlocked, because I knew mine was a better example as the colour of the vehicle was less reflective. Doesn't matter if the car is new, because where I photograph in Fremantle, there are plenty of rental cars which are brand new but he believes that his images are better than mine. 3 (my photo) replaced image 1 on October 20 2018 @ 12.40. Then on October 21 2018 Vauxford replaced image 2 with the edit summary "Previous is fine." I do not understand how an image taken at a car dealership with cars in the background is really an improvement. He also says he deviates away from WP:CARPIX which has been used for a long time on car articles. Again, i am not sure whether he is delibrately trying to sabotage Wikipedia or whether he is trying to just ruin for everyone. Also if he were to say that, he'd be reverting back to image 1. He never takes anyones advice in regards with his editing behaviour telling me I should focus on other areas. Well Vauxford, unfortunately for you, what happens if an Australian car (Holden Commodore) comes into Europe and you picture it? Then you claim its higher quality. its not fair how he is taking the upper gain

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2
• 
  Image 3

In other words, Charles01, out of the three images, which would be the better choice for illustrating the relevant articles. I am fine with Vauxford's however I notice there are some 'blindspots' and I've made some recent edits on mine to illustrate the better example. The Audi I pictured is relatively new as well, but because of the colour and the neat background, I believe its the better example. Yes blindspots can be helped, just don't picture a darker coloured vehicle. Also the colour of the vehicle shouldn't really matter, because if the colour is brighter, then it should be the better example. Again another complaint I have is User:Vauxford not following WP:CARPIX guidelines and thinks I should "work it out myself." Yes I am not stupid, I can work things myself, however I follow the guidelines that is established on Wikipedia that we have discussed over the years and I use that for my car photos and we prefer brighter colours. I am getting a polarizing filter for my 2019 shots to be improved and therefore reduce blindspot error as you previously made complains about. To sum it up could you please tell me out of the three , which would be the better example. Also please let Vauxford know too !! To prevent further conflict, if Vauxford's and mine are of similar quality, then we will have a discussion, as I do not think he listens much. Also I don't mind the Mondeo revert you did, I was about to replace it with yours, its a brilliant example, so thankyou and happy editing. Mr.choppers if you want to get involved, help yourself !! --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

They're all three of them - in my judgement - moderately bad. The one you identify as Image 3 would be ok if the photographer had put his camera about half a meter (that's just over a foot and a half) higher and stood a bit further back and thereby zoomed at bit less wide. And if the building behind the car at the back was more different in colour from the car itself. Right now the roof at the back tends to blend into the backdrop too readily, at least if you blow it up to full screen size. Tho of course most of these pictures are intended to be looked at as a small part of an overall page on the screen. And certainly there are many worse in respect of zoom use and background. There are some weird reflections on the metal paintwork on the side of the car but, again, there are plenty that are far worse, many of them uploaded by you and some, no doubt, by me. And someone with the appropriate skills and ready to take the time and care necessary could probably improve the reflections problem further with software manipulation, though a good picture should not need that in the first place, and that path can easily take one little by little further away from "realistic" unless you are very careful indeed.

The other two pictures have their own issues in terms of reflections and background. I'm sure they have redeeming features, but the problems that hit you when you first look at them are hard to get past. I think I prefer the one you call Image 2. Less zoom distortion and pictures taken indoors under spot lights such as "Image 3" introduce a whole new range of challenges in the lighting department.

In my sometimes humble opinion wikipedia commons doesn't really have a decent picture of the Audi A4 B9. Give it time and someone will find one with the right kind of light coming from the right angles, a reasonable background, a foreground that means you can stand not too close and not too far from it and not too much camber in the road (which makes finding a decent angle for the car more ... um ... challenging). Photograph it from chest height rather than from ... um ... pelvis height (assuming you are of conventional height). Your chest is approximately halfway between the height from which an average-sized wiki reader see the thing when sitting in his/her own car across the road and the height from which you see it as a pedestrian waiting to cross the road. Higher or lower can sometimes be justified by other factors, but it should not - at least in my opinion - be your default.

But please don't rush out and photograph the first A4 B9 you see and assume it's better than what we have. Look at what you have first.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have added more thoughts while I was replying to your earlier ones. The foregoing does not, of course, take account of these!

Of course Charles01, again sorry what do you mean by backdrops. Yeah look, no worries mate, I don't usually take time, because I have been struggling. Please re-evaluate Image3 and feel free to add corrections. What do you mean by "backdrop blending in?" Again, how do I improve these? I'm not too sure mate, just thought I hit you up for advice. What are your steps and recommendations? Please feel free to talk it on my page :). Also I'd probably be run over if I took an extra step by buses. Can you please explain what good backgrounds would be when I take a photo of a vehicle? I'm not too sure how to approach it and do the right thing. Of course, I do not replace any image that has QI rating as it is the best quality and what we expect --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Why should the image constantly change? It just Nim getting upset that his image is not being used as much and determining to correct, he been doing this for a while. If what you say when it comes to reflection etc. I might as well stand hours waiting for the sun be in the best position. It completely impractical. Funny enough, "Image 2" is what he personally requested me to photograph few months back. I told him to focus more on the cars that are exclusively sold in Australia since I already have a good grasp with location for things like Audi A4 and if I recalled, Nim and I seem to have reach a consensus to that, only to suddenly complain about something that could of been discussed two months ago. --Vauxford (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Vauxford, Polarizing filters are the best to reduce reflections (which I'll purchase). Again, sometimes I like to revisit the thing again to see whether theres any need. Also Vauxford, read WP:BIAS, it might not be an official policy, but its critical :-). Best --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)