Open main menu
Vauxhall Insignia diesel 1598cc registered July 2017 (retouched).jpg
Vauxhall Velox 2651cc registered February 1963 so an early PB looking well tended.jpg

Contents

Disambiguation link notification for January 2Edit

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)

Additions to German WikipediaEdit

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)

Thank youEdit

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)

Reichsgau WarthelandEdit

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

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you much. Very best wishes, Charles01 (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks, Gerda. I think I'm beginning to figure out how this works, though it's a bit odd how the intervals between the anniversaries keep contracting. Good things Charles01 (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It works by increasing the sapphire size but too lazy to change the year also ;) - I thought of you when working on Siegfried Geißler. Should I ping you to articles with more red links than I can handle myself? Like Leipziger Universitätsmusik? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense.
Pinging is free once you've worked out how to do it. No, don't tell me: better I shouldn't know.
On red links, I collect mine here and at successive sandbox pages. No chance I will ever turn that lot blue. So if ever you get bored with your redlinks, feel free to tuck into mine.... If you list yours on an accessible page somewhere, feel free to pass me a link. These days I tend to restrict myself to biographical stubs bis stubs++ depending how much I find out as I go along. But I might get bored with that one day, so if you alert me to a red link that isn't a biography, I guess I might feel the urge to abandon my own red links to tuck into one or two of yours. Please don't take it personally if I don't, though. It's about me, not about you! Or rather, about how inspired I become by a given topic or wiki-need.
Is there any kinship connection between Siegfried Geißler and Senta Geißler about whom I did a translation/adaptation not too long ago? I've not come across the link if there is one. And I think it's quite a popular name. So probably no family connection within recorded time
Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Got it, and thank you. Yes, it's a common name, and no family was mentioned for Siegfried. - Bio: Lois Welzenbacher [de], if you like, and a stub would be helpful ;) - I restrict myself to one per day, DYK? And am driven more often than I like by recent deaths. Started one yesterday, and found an obituary today! Yes, that where the other would fit in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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—2018Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for the English WikipediaSubscription 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 "Visual differences", 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 changesEdit

  • 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 togetherEdit

  • 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 11Edit

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 MeritEdit

  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 LaneEdit

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 29Edit

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-roundedEdit

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 12Edit

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 OchsEdit

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 19Edit

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!Edit

  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 26Edit

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)

Climax CR1Edit

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)

1968 VW 411 pictureEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

The notice at the top of your userpage!Edit

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 procedureEdit

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 7Edit

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 14Edit

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...Edit

...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 29Edit

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 19Edit

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 discussionEdit

 

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 womenEdit

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 250Edit

@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 31Edit

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 6Edit

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)

Mount PantherEdit

I don't know if it is still "for sale" but it certainly was for sale when the photo was taken. Retain or revert as you wish but I preferred the previous wording. ww2censor (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25Edit

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—2018Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletterSubscription 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 changesEdit

Let's work togetherEdit

  • 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 7Edit

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!Edit

  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 14Edit

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 messageEdit

 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 21Edit

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)

EurovisionNimEdit

Extended content

Your vocabluaryEdit

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)Edit

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

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)

Maserati Quattroporte imageEdit

WP:CARPIX doesn't require a specific angle of a photograph like you put it. Plus your requirements for a photograph are very strict, given that there is no rule on Wikipedia that suggests to do so. U1Quattro (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi U1Quattro. How are you? Yeah look, WP:CARPIX is technically not an official policy, however myself and Charles are quite strict. Do you have the actual image you wish to replace. Please bring it to the relevant talkpage discussion mate, and we can work on finding the best one. Hey don't worry, if you wish to replace it in your opinion, go ahead, but please note, users have the right to revert mate. :) Take care for now :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
First off, EurovisionNim I'm not a talk page stalker as you put it. Charles01 himself instructed to take matters to his talk page in case of any disagreement. Second off, I put the following image in place of the V6 4Porte image:
This is a high quality image and is taken at the right angle.U1Quattro (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually mate, showroom images are discouraged. WP:CARPIX doesn't actually mean anything if its in the showroom. There are lots of distracting backgrounds. I was planning to picture one, but my friend says I won't have any luck in Australia. Charles01, why don't you photograph the Maserati Quattroporte. Also the angle is not at 3/4 so it won't be a good replacement unfortunately. Sorry mate. But I'll let Charles01 be on your case :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking you'd like to use the German image. It may be sunlit, but its sure a good example :} --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not in the showroom but at the Paris Motor Show. Do you not understand the difference?U1Quattro (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

My request that you take discussing to the talk page was intended to mean the talk page for the entry in question. I am sorry I was not sufficiently clear on that and you took it as an invitation to take the thing to my talk page.

EurovisionNim has invoked WP:CARPIX to justify uploading a lot - a LOT - of second rate pictures of cars (and some that are truly terrible) taken by himself and a fellow called Vauxford with whom he has a very odd wiki-grooming relationship. I think he wishes to take over the world which would - or at least might - be fine if he was God. I believe the overall effect of the pictures he uploads has been to degrade wikipedia. I have mentioned this to him before. He knows that I think this but he continues down his path. It is my opinion. He does not say he disagrees. But then again, if ever he stops to think, he may do.

Since you guys have dumped on my talk page here's more of what I think:

"doesn't require a specific angle of a photograph like you put it". You are right. This should be no more than a statement of the bleeping obvious. The page you are looking at is one of guidelines. Guidelines should not be used as an excuse for attaching lousy images to entries on cars. Jimmy Wales says rules are there to be broken, I think, but here we are not talking about rules. We are talking about guidelines set down by people who know what they're talking about - or should do - and hope thereby to be able to help you to take better pictures of cars. If only...

As far as the various pictures of the Maserati Quattroporte VI are concerned, the place to discuss it is surely on the talk page for the Maserati Quattroporte. Maybe you already started doing that. There are, of course, no right answers on this stuff. Or wrong ones. Only opinions. More generally. if you think the pictures that EurovisionNim are brilliant - or even if you think they're quite good - you should say so. You might even persuade me. Then again ...

Happy days Charles01 (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

EurovisionNim has already lost the credibility that he had by identifying an image from a motor show as an image from a showroom. I whole heartedly agree on your opinion about him. He do has taken some terrible pictures (recent pictures of the E46 M3 are an example) and goes about replacing the pictures on articles by those taken by Vauxford, thus identifying him as biased. Wikicommons sure needs a major overhaul and the deletion of terrible images, especially in the automotive sector (what I know of). I do apologise for annoying you, if I had done so by discussing the matter on your talk page.U1Quattro (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
U1Quattro. Its mainly Vauxford's fault. He doesn't really listen to the guidelines set 😂😂. Yeah my mates really think I go a little bit overboard. I always act as the 'Captain' of the ship, however like the enemy ship, Vauxford tries to sink us 😝. Yeah whatever, opinions opinions, who cares. I would actually do deletion of many photos, but I got blocked along with OSX for nominating junk files of mine for deletion. I think we have been based amongst political bias rather than trying to get the thing overwhelmed. Yeah look, if I were you, i'd get a sample of images and post it to Talk:Maserati Quattroporte and have a consensus discussion. And mate, you are almost there, I don't do just me and Vauxford, I do M 93's images as well. Yeah I am biased, but not what you think I am 😀. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Charles01 "second rate pictures of cars (and some that are truly terrible) taken by himself and a fellow called Vauxford with whom he has a very odd wiki-grooming relationship" Let me clarifying this first. I am in no shape or form in some buddy relationship with Nim. In fact, I'm more against him and his delusional views and as you can see right now, he just threw me under the bus because U1Quattro (like me) disagreed with the need to follow this CARPIX since he keep treating it like some official policy which is not.
Why now you seem to be venting about how terrible some of my pictures were despite the fact we never ran into problems with each other? If you really have a problem with some of my pictures, then revert it and discuss it with me, rather then keeping it all to yourself and then express it when I'm not looking. Show me examples that you find oh-so degrading? In the beginning when I was starting out and before Nim began stalking me everywhere I go and tried to be exactly like. (how I speak, photograph and all sorts), I asked you advice of what a good picture of a car and over that time I presumed you think I improved and we didn't have creative difference. Like I said, please do not mix me and Nim with the pictures we took because that is not the case at all. I have always doing it in my own style rather then from some essay, too bad it keeps getting tarnished by this smug Australian with his smileys as well as mistaken as to be part of some "wiki-grooming relationship" where me and his pictures get labelled into one which I find out of this discussion the most frustrating.
I tend to compare Nim's pictures as a Chinese knockoff of mine since he tries to copy everything I do. As a example you mentioned, he has been using buzzword and jargon like chromatic aberration and "sundreached" and then regurgitate them out and use it to justified what he said, he doesn't think for himself that much and heavily leech on others like you and me which I find just lazy.
U1Quattro The difference with me and Nim is that I don't actually follow this CARPIX guideline because you are right, it is very strict and Nim always get worked up when I don't follow it, claiming that I'm "violating CARPIX policy" Personally I think the "talkpage stalker" here is the one I'm despising. --Vauxford (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


@Vauxford: Guidelines are in place to follow. Think of it, you are at school or university and you decide that hey maybe you can bend the rules a bit, then you run into trouble with your dean or teacher. And no Vauxford I am NOT a Chinese knockoff. Stop trying to accuse me of being 'lazy'. I was here longer than you and I've contributed plenty of my images for Wikipedia for the last 4-5 years and I have believed myself to be a well minded editor. Regardless, Vauxford, I was the one who mentored you into improving photos, because i didn't particularly fancy your other ones. Further to that, I do not replace a lot of images (well I do sometimes), but I do that knowing that my images are better improvements – but likewise I am NOT a Chinese knockoff, thats an insult because I'm Australian, and I do contribute the same way as everyone else. I reserve the right to showcase my image, Charles01 deserves the right to do that, and you do as well. I actually started the trend, but its the other way around. Okay, please do not accuse me again. I don't actually like your Audi Q7 images, because it is very grainy. I don't care if you weren't able to afford a better camera, at the end of the day, your image is low quality and thats that. Its plain simple, stop arguing with me, I don't know you, and you seem to be just as SquiddyFish said to me on Facebook "pixels on a screen". It's funny that I began the trend, and you kept egging me with 'list' of vehicles. I told you to focus on the European manufactured cars that sell well in your country not doing Japanese cars such as Nissan, Toyota, Mazda etc. I don't mind him, I can be delusional, yes, but I can say what I want as long as its appopriate. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
You just proven your point, really showing your true colours that U1Quattro was trying to point out with playground bragging rights like "I started this trend" "I was here longer then you". You're like a broken record player. I don't see being here longer makes you any more justifiable, looking back your timeline between 2014-2017 (Which is a good 3 years), your pictures were pretty abysmal as a comparison of me who (I like to think I have improved but Charles01 seem to think me and you are the same person) been on here for just over two years and there a big difference between what I took September 2017 to August Summer 2018 (around 11 months) which during that time period were not that good but it is a much shorter time gap. --Vauxford (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • The EurovisionNim-Vauxford relationship is something I do not begin to understand. The more I look at your respective talk pages the more gobsmacked I become. This really is not an area where I can claim any special expertise. But, as the lawyers sometimes like to say whether they mean it or not, "I note what you write".
  • On the quality of images linked to articles, I have begun to be a bit more active in sharing my opinions. But I'm afraid no one except possibly you and EurovisionNim has time to form a view and then share it every time you introduce (or he introduces) another picture.
  • I do try and take time to write what I think about a picture when I take the time and apply the chutzpah to become involved. In the case of "your" pictures I find I tend to write the same things about why I think what I think. Maybe there is a clue there. And where you think I am wrong you are very much at liberty to say so.
  • I think I have written before - certainly thought - that your pictures have improved a lot in the last couple of years. Will they improve more in the next few years? I hope so. I hope mine will too. And even ... everyone else's. Should you value my opinion on this? Well, it would be nice (for me) if you did, but what you seem to be doing - and need to do much more of in my ignorable opinion - is develop your own objective judgment of your own pictures. And of everyone else's.
  • Are your pictures and those of EurovisionNim so good that uploading them to wikipedia without discrimination and on an industrial scale has improved the wikipedia coverage of cars? Um ... I think not. But what do you think?
  • I am, within reason, happy to share thoughts on my talk page. But where they concern primarily discussions between EurovisionNim and Vauxford about pictures uploaded by EurovisionNim and/or Vauxford, it probably makes more sense, usually, to conduct those discussions either on the talk page connected with the images you are discussing or else on th talk page of EurovisionNim and/or Vauxford.

No further thoughts. Except whatever happened to Saturday? Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Charles01 Like I said, what happened on my talkpage is just Nim pestering on everything I do and started these discussions. I rather not be bothered on my talkpage everyday and if Nim wasn't on Wikipedia you wouldn't hear much from me. I value your opinion, although can be a bit gritty but it usually true to some extend. In my logic (A certain individual might steal what I'm about to say) I upload bulks of I what think is good, balancing the quality and quantity as much as I can, rather then spending months evaluating every picture that you took that might deem a Renaissance masterpiece and ended up uploading just 4 pictures, it inconvenient. Seeing now new cars, facelifts are coming out almost every months, you don't have much time before having to move on to look for the next new thing. In my honest opinion and please don't take this personally, if everyone were to upload and contribute to car articles at a rate as you do, we will be about a good decade behind, there be barely any progress with these automobile articles. --Vauxford (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to point out thatEurovisionNim floods articles with pictures which is also a violation of the article guidelines. Like mate, give the guideline a read, it's better to just upload the necessary photos and leave the commons link at the end of the article rather than flooding it with photos. This is an article site, not a photo gallery.U1Quattro (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Toyota HiluxEdit

Hi Charles, hope you are well, please see discussion on Talk:Toyota Hilux. I would love your input into the matter and a second opinion, to prevent bias. Have a nice one :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

GeographyEdit

I've corrected your edit. Sawrey was in Lancashire, not Cumberland. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. That Peter Walker's got a lot to answer for. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Ford Mondeo (third gen)Edit

Hi Charles, I really liked your replacement, however because in general the pre-facelift would be introduced first, I moved it down to the facelift section. Its a wonderful example and I hope to see some more amazing ones from you. Also besides, now I've learnt my lesson from the Vauxford confrontation, I now try to contribute to become a wonderful editor. This is mainly due to you and Mr.choppers swaying me away from CARPIX guidelines and think for myself. Have a nice one buddy, and merry xmas --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(copied to talk page where it belong (say I) Charles01 (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
When you made the comment "You are not the king" – that assumed lol when you said "say I" I was laughing hysterically. I don't know why you needed to actually copy to it. You could however maybe reworded it. I may revert it, because I was going to write on the talkpage as well, I just wanted you to know how I was, so everyone is good with my image replacements. All good mate, don't worry too much --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Volkswagen GroupEdit

Hi Charles, how are you? Please see Talk:Volkswagen Group and provide your commentary. I will not make any further edits for the Volkswagen Scirocco, until we are all on one page as this may instigate an edit war. Thanks, Nim --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Xmas !!Edit

  EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidaysEdit

 
Alcohol free?

I'm not so politically correct I'll censor myself, I just don't know (or care ;p ) what flavor you celebrate. So, greetings of the season, & may they bring you joy. Kris Kringle ho ho ho 19:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Rod action?Edit

Yeah, it's been awhile. ;p I'm hoping you've got back issues of Hot Rod and/or National Dragster for around November 1967 (or can find them at your local library), to help establish coverage for Doug Thorley. If you don't (can't), no worries; thx for any help you can give. 6 White Boomers I come from a land up over 19:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

My thanx for the comments on Thorley. Well said, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Audi Q7Edit

Hi Charles, hope you are having a great xmas. Please see Talk:Audi Q7 and provide your commentary. I'm having an issue about Vauxford's Audi Q7 image at the moment and was wondering whether you'd be able to help out. I've laid out two other possible examples. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 07:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Retirement?Edit

No. Only another 3,000 edits. More power to your keyboard. Best wishes for the New Year. Eddaido (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Who said anything about retirement? Not I ... I'm not even quite sure what it means. But as you get older - if you're lucky - people start paying you money for what you used to do rather than for what you are doing. Would that count? Would it be worth it? Best wishes for 2019 to you also! Charles01 (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Charles01!Edit

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


Proposed Honda Civic replacementEdit

Hey Charles, Saw you made a replacement of Vauxford's example. I totally agree with your edits, unfortunately dark coloured vehicles do emit a lot of reflections.

I have a proposal of another image, this time however its a sedan. Also please note, background is important in achieving a successful image. I've proposed the following to be used. I've not had the time to take photos, due to other commitments and my camera is getting serviced in 3 days.

Out of these, which of the three you think would be most suitable. Please be evaluative, do not think yours is better just for the sake of it. Okay, please let me know. If I was in your shoes, I'd do the Brazillian version due to less distractions :). All are welcome to choose, including Vauxford. Also note, Charles did the replacement, so I thought I bring it up :). See diff.

Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

EurovisionNim The previous image which you (probably intentionally) not listed was fine. There is no distinctive tilt in it and the reflection isn't that much of a problem. --Vauxford (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
No I was doing it to another one mate, not yours. It was my example. You may have made a mistake :) It was to replace my blue sedan one :). The problem Charles and I have with yours is the background. Also technically dark colour cars tend to emit blindspots, as Charles spotted so it was not me who did that replacement. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Vauxford. I've added yours, please see out of the four, which is better. Apologetic for my mistake --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Copied and pasted to where it belongs. Happy year Charles01 (talk)

Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...Edit

... 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)

January 2019Edit

  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)

Please do not refer to any editor as a psychopath as you did here[5], 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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10Edit

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)

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

ApologiesEdit

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, –Davey2010Talk 14:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24Edit

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)

Photo backgroundEdit

 
1982
 
1972

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)

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)
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)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9Edit

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)

AnarchismEdit

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)

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)

Category:People from the canton of Vaud has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

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)

Many thanksEdit

 
My contribs are like this Unimog prototype: Functional, but not perfect.

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)

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)
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)

A beer for you!Edit

  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)
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)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12Edit

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)

Continuation of the Hilux photo debateEdit

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)

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

VauxfordEdit

Extended content
I just read your respond, honestly I don't think it bad to be persistent of doing the things you love, except if it becomes disruptive and breaking Wikipedia policies. You still seem to not understand what I mean that I have no association with EurovisionNim whatsoever.
"If we just retained 10% of Vauxford's pictures linked to car entries, wikipedia quality would be enhanced and wikipedia readers would have every reasons to be grateful to the fellow." Seriously, I don't see how my pictures is degrading Wikipedia they are obviously being used without my intervention and this is not a vanity project I'm doing. It just so happen pictures I insert were taken from me, which I know is hard to believe but I can tell you that the honest truth.
I'm simply fed up with you looking down on me, constantly making sarcastic remarks and treated me like I'm a sub-human. Is this how you treat people below you when you were in education? university? jobs? life?. I once looked up to you as a inspiration to what I do when I first started, a highly respected individual but I guess I was wrong. There no other better word I could find that fits what I really think of you; a bully.
Instead of talking negative and indirectly about how my pictures should all get removed and how I'm a thorn to everyone side on Wikipedia when I have sincerely no intention of doing that, I always want to maintain good faith and not be disruptive although I failed to proven that with the recent edit warring which I deeply apologise of causing.
I still have some faith that deep down your a decent gentleman and you can approach what you disagree more positively or realistically, constructively. Most genuine users are in this together, not all of them are boomers who got degrees and graduated from prestige universities. Rather then continue talking down a editor who did wrong until they break, try and help them, sometimes it difficult to get both parties to agree over something but I don't think of myself as the type of person who will just go back to their old selves afterwards. --Vauxford (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not asking much but I find replying to my statement with only a Thank on my edit shows that you know very well of how you treat other editors but reluctant to admit so. --Vauxford (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't rush to reply because I couldn't think of anything to write. But you choose to intrerpret my failure to jump in as somehow disrespectful to you. And it's the second time you've done that to me. I'm afraid I do not have the expertise or experience to be able to diagnose with any confidence what is going on here. Clearly there are issues, and right now you have issues with me. I think of them as your issues, but you may find it easier to think of them as mine. Either way, one of my concerns was that anything I wrote might make said issues worse rather than better. My overall reaction, of pushed, is that by dumping this little rant on my talk page you leave me wondering what on earth you must be on when you write it. (Me? Boring old coffee. Well, not that boring, actually ...)
I don't think I've changed my mind significantly about the way you carry on. But if, by expressing myself as I do, I trigger in you distress, well I regret the distress. I try to treat everyone equally; and on wikipedia my default assumption is that everyone "here" is an adult.
But it's not really about you. It's not even about me. This is a wikipedia talk page. There's a clue in there somewhere. I do think you have produced some good picures for wikipedia - and a few that are better than good. I think you have produced, linked to erticles, and then stubbornly defended rather more that are not very good. I think that because of the number of simply ok and bad you have uploaded, to put it as gently as I can manage, you have on balance not made wikipedia better. I may be wrong but that is what I think. And I think the way you behave when someone dares to disagree with your "judgment" concerning "your" pictures is appalling and dangerous because it discourages other people from contributing at all. Wikipedia is a collaboration. That's the only way it can work. If you treat it as a personal vanity project, then you miss the point, and the damage you do to the constructive collaborative approach extends far beyond the damage you do simply by linking a large number of mixed quality images.
On the simple matter of linking pictures to wikipeida entries, I have already indicated several times that most conributors are content to upload their pictures to commons and leave it to someone else to determine which pictures fit best with any given article. Many car articles are compiled over ten or more years by ten or twenty thoughtful and careful constributors. Each one of them is just as entitled as you are to have an opinion about what is an imnprovement and what is not, whether regarding text, tables or pictures. There can be exeptions, but my starting point is that once you start inserting "your" pictures without regard for their appropriateness or quality, you are being unnecessarily arrogant. Where your pictures of cars are brilliant, of course, no one will care or in most cases even notice. But otherwise, you should expect people to notice. And, in rare and extreme cases, care enough to do something about it.
As I wrote already, it's about wikipedia. Both you and EurovisionNim, when you get excited (which seems to come easily), insist on treating wikipedia as a personal fiefdom. But none of my insights on your behaviour - whether or not you share them - should normally belong on my talk page or on anyone else's. Nor yours on mine. Wikipedia is not about you.
Well, I try to tell it like it is, or at least like it looks from here. I hope I do not upset you when I do that, but if I do, then of course I am a nasty old bully and you hate me and we're back to the Kindergarten. Which is all more than a little bit sad. And not stuff that should normally be included on a wikipedia talk page. Getting reptitive. Time to stop. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

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)

PleaseEdit

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)


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)
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)

T-typeEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)

EditEdit

  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)

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)

Proposed deletion of File:Location of Deidesheim.jpgEdit

 

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)

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)

IncidentEdit

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

Volvo 300Edit

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)


Vauxford's report on ANI reopenedEdit

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)

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)

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

IncidentEdit

  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)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20Edit

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)

A barnstar for you!Edit

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

SockpuppetEdit

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)

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)

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)
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)

Thanks for the thanks!Edit

I liked your user page and thought the

Wikipedia:Babel
de-5Dieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch auf einem professionellen Niveau.
enThis 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)

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 infoboxes just come from copying other people's info 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)

Editing News #1—July 2019Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

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

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon   to start editing.

Edit Cards

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

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 releasesEdit

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 projectsEdit

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 aheadEdit

  • 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 moreEdit

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)

User:Charles01/Sandbox ANIVauxfordattack 04 June 2019 Draft reaction Version 04 July 2019 deletedEdit

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

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)

ANIEdit

  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)

Ernst TillichEdit

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1Edit

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)

Nomination of Henry Canning for deletionEdit

 

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)

Norman StoneEdit

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)

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)

Bierut DecreesEdit

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)

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)

Bursfelde AbbeyEdit

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)

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)

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)

OverlinkingEdit

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)

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)

Maybe you can help meEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

─────────────────────────

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)

ANIEdit

  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)

Return to the user page of "Charles01".