Thank you for your edit of Präsident. I appreciate it. Unless it lies out of area of your interest, could you please take a look at my other article University of Olomouc?Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing. I am very cautious about checking anything written by a Czech mother - tongue speaker, because I do not understand Czech (or any of the middle European language group) beyond "good day" (and even there I tend to get the word order wrong).

So it is good to know someone is there who will correct the meaning if I change it without intending to. On the University of Olomouc yes, of course. I am flattered that you ask, and I will be interested to take a look, probably late this week.

Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS It looks as though the University of Olomouc entry has been very carefully checked through already. The bumpiest bits appear to be in the Executive summary / introduction because there you already have input from many people and inevitably it is tough to merge the inputs of twenty people seamlessly. Anyhow, I'll be twenty-one. And I'll read through the rest again more carefully later, but I may not find very much that I should wish to justify changing. Charles01 (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been thoroughly copy-edited, however since then I have worked on the article and extended it, especially the history section, faculties, and Library. Otherwise the Facilities and Governance sections should be clean already. Thank you very much for you help. Only after copy-edits I always realize how bad my English is.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Charles01. You have new messages at Cimmerian praetor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Charles01 - The picture you have posted, labelled "Bedford TD truck" shows a Bedford TA model truck, the previous model to the TD.

The TA was built from 1952 to 1956. The TD was built from 1956 to 1959.

There are substantial differences in the grille area between the two models, but these are not readily discernable to most casual viewers.

The main distinguishing grill difference between the two models, is an additional chromed section with two eye-like embellishments at each end, at the top of the grille.

However, the three lower grille bars are larger and longer on the TD model.

In addition, the TD model features headlights that are somewhat recessed, with chrome surrounds, as compared to the TA's prominent headlights, that have no surrounds.

The entire front grille panel is actually a totally different pressing on the TD, as compared to the TA.

There is a photo of a Bedford TD model in the following link - http://www.flickr.com/photos/41172888@N07/5199250209

These Bedford trucks are more commonly known as "A" models and "D" models, as the "T" merely indicated a "truck" model.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.48.147 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting and thank you. I'm (about 80%) convinced even though I have absolutely no idea who you are. However, in the interest of wikipedia verifiability guidelines and the principals that (with any luck) underline them, are you able to support this with anything I might call attributable verification. For instance, I know from the UK tax office that the truck I photographed was first registered in 1955, so if you could refer me to a convincing web page (easier for me to access for myself) and / or some authoritative book / contemporary sales brochure etc (easier to believe than something dumped on the web probably without any source information) stating that and WHEN the A was replaced by the D, that would be seriously helpful. Best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:Dear Charles

Do You know who the owner is of the beautiful green Morris oxford Cowley on 25JNT ? or email-adress ?

Thank You very much

hans Crabbe

No Hans. I regret that I do not know the name or contact details of the owner.

I photographed the van in Essex at a classic car show. It is clearly a much loved vehicle. So I think you can conclude that the owner (1) is an enthusiast and (2) probably lives (or at least did in 2010) in or near Essex or London, here in England. People like that are often members of enthusiasts' clubs, or at least friends of people who are. Those networks are valuable both for the pleasure of a shared enthusiasm and for the important practical purpose of knowing how to obtain suitable spare parts. So if you google relevant words (maybe ...." "Morris Cowley" club Essex " ....for starters, and then move on using more or fewer likely words if that doesn't work) you have every likelihood of finding a forum for an enthusiasts' club where you can contact the contact person and ask him (or possibly her, but not usually in these cases) if he knows more about this vehicle.

Success. Charles01 (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles,

Like the cars, very nice. I kinda like old cars myself as they are easy to maintain and a bit more distinctive than the modern cars that all look the same.

I notice you have been editing the Olomic University for User:Cimmerian praetor. He asks me to copy edit his articles sometimes because he is not a native English speaker. We get along very well, I have also asked him occasionally to check articles I have edited that relate to Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic etc. That's the Wikipedia spirit I hope.

And in that spirit I just wanted to say hello because I have copy edited the Olomouc University article history section as requested by Cimmerian, but please don't think I am treading on your toes because I know you have been editing it too, and anything you think clashes (unlikely in fact but probably in style) please feel free to revert change or edit. Of course you are free to do that without my permission, I mean I just won't be at all offended. I have been on rather a long Wikibreak in moving home and making the new house nice so have not been doing too much on here, I even missed Wikipedia's 10th birthday!

S.

Dear S.... well yes, that's the first question.

But I checked on CP's page and I think you are probably Simon Trew.

Thank you for the e-introduction. Yes, I've been working through the entry on Olomouc Uni, at the request of CP, trying to make the flow more English. I hope it has been helpful. It's certainly been interesting for me, as translating often can be. In fact, it's not really translation at all, since apart from the basic words needed to get a drink or a meal in Polish (useful in Poland) or Russian (which members of my generation in central Europe are often trying to forget), I have no knowledge of the Slavic languages. However, in the case of Olomouc, at least some of one's questions can be answered by reference to an equivalent entry in German which I can more or less manage. As you noticed, my area of principal obsession when working on wikipedia tends to be in respect of cars. That's not just old cars, but with older cars one tends to have the entry more or less to oneself, whereas if you want to produce a coherent entry on the Toyota Corolla in 2005, you can be pretty sure it will get improved out of recognition in two months. Of course, most of the improvements taken in isolation really are improvements, and that's the wiki process. But where 20 people each have their own idea of how to tell it like it is about the Toyota Corolla, the resulting concatenations become rather indigestible. So yes, my own car contributions that have remained relatively unimproved tend to be in respect of older cars for which there are relatively few of us contributing, and we tend to know and respect one another's complementary strengths and (as if....) weaknesses.

But I am enjoying learning a bit about Olomouc Uni more than I had expected. Way back in another life, my university degree was in history, so that although throughout much of my life the whole of middle Europe has been virtually cut off from my west European consciousness, there are nevertheless plenty of things in Moravian history which do link into things that I know about - or at least once knew about when I was at uni myself. BUT there is with this entry the particular challenge that I cannot simply refer back to the Czech equivalent entry or (given that the Czech equivalent entry is quite short in this case) the Czech language on-line linked source in order to determine what it was that the earlier writer would have (or should have...) intended. Actually, with this entry there have been several cases where I have asked CP to check out a source in the Czech language, and an ambiguity that I had assumed to result from a translation vagueness actually results from an ambiguity in the Czech language source text. That's reassuring in terms of the translated text, but of course it is frustrating to the extent that one was hoping to find out more precisely what actually happened.

No further thoughts. I am based in England which you may have inferred from my (admittedly sometimes inconsistent) spelling. There's a bit of a wiki-CV (that's resumee if you think in American, but I don't think you do) for me on my wiki-page. Probably more than you should need or wish to know, but of course I find me quite interesting. Nothing so unusual there, then...

On with Monday. Have a good day. Charles01 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles,

it seems that Simon took it as request only for the History introduction itself. He actually copy-edited it for me some time before, that is before I added siginficant content to the whole history section. Since he was already doing all once, and as you seem to be enjoying it, as well as your historical insight is helping to improve the article not only on the language level, I would like to ask you to continue with your copy-editing work.

I also wanted to ask you, if you would like to cooperate with me on Tatra articles. I want to finish the streamlined ones (I did Tatra V570, Tatra 77, Tatra 603 - this is in serious need of copy-edit', and I am planning to do Tatra 87, Tatra 97 and Tatra 600, and afterwards work on the current Tatra line (I finished Tatra 815, but the rest needs work). It is rather huge workload, and I am currently quite busy with my studies, so the progress will be anyway slow from my part. But as I have already mentioned, I lack necessary technical knowledge in Czech, not to mention in English.

Best Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly interested in working on the Tatra entries. That was a fascinating series of cars, and here in western Europe very little known.

As far as the Olomouc Uni entry is concerned, I think it probably makes sense to pause at least for 24 hours to see if Simon will want to continue. But this is also an excuse on my part. A change of subject can be refreshing. I do intend to return to it, though, probably later this week, and probably before diving seriously into the Tatra entries. With the uni entry I'm not sure I'll go past the history section, because the history is what interests me most here (and I think it's where your own input and interest is also greatest), but till now I have not really thought that far ahead.

Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Charles01, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Charles01. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles,

could you please tell me, how do you understand, as a native speaker, word conservative in this sentence? Gun politics in the Czech Republic compared to other countries in Europe might be considered more conservative. Do you understand it as being easy to obtain a gun (as it indeed is), or on the contrary? Thank you.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservative" works fine for American (USA and probably also Canadian) speakers. Gun ownership is a big political issue in the US and it tends to be the more conservative elements in the Republican party that lobby vigorously for the "right to bear arms".

In (British) English - except for people with a good general awareness of the USA - it (the word "conservative") does not really do very much here. You could say "permissive" which is the right word, but it's not a word anyone uses other than in connection with sex. You could say "liberal" or "laissez-faire" but those are both words with a huge emotional and political baggage for our American friends. So no, I cannot think of a better word than "conservative", but I do not think it's a good word here for English English speakers.

As you may have noticed, I did some work on the anglophone Gun politics in Italy entry. I have a problem with the word "politics" because I think it means slightly different things in the UK and in the US. There is a problem translating from Italian, because the Italian language uses one word for both "policy" and for "politics". And as you'll appreciate, these are not the same thing in English. I tried to change the name of the entry, but there is a whole series of "Gun politics in ....(by country)" entries, and really I am not sufficiently interested to get into a dispute with a whole lot of American gun owners on the matter! If you look at the Gun politics in Italy you'll see that my opening sentence, which attempted to define the subject for those to whom its meaning was not obvious, is still there. (Well it was five minutes ago.) Ditto my footnote explaining that "politica" is Italian for "policy" AND for "politics". And if you're sufficiently interested, you can go to the talk page for that entry and see me agreeing with someone who may (or may not) be Chinese that its the wrong title for the entry. But maybe you already did that which is why your asking me about Gun politics in Czechia

I suppose my only other thought about the Gun politics in Czechia entry is that the subject is MUCH more fequently and passionately discussed in the USA than in the UK (except when some nut with a gun goes mad with it in England which does happen every so often) so you should probably respect the usages of US readers rather than of English ones in this entry where you cannot completely avoid words that mean different things in the two places.

Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explanation. I thought the issue might lie there.

The politics/policy has also only one word in Czech, like in Italian.

As I went fast through the existing articles, it seems, that the Czech Republic is the only country in Europe, where a very vague "self-defence" is accepted as reason good enough to give a licence, and at the same time you can carry loaded concealed gun whenever you like. As far as I know (and the article seems to be saying the same), even in Switzerland it is forbiden to carry concealed and loaded gun. Maybe I will work a bit on the Czech guns article to make it better.

One more thought: Czechia? Really? This is second time I have ever encountered this term from English speaker, I am used that people from Bohemia are usually pushing hard this term, which is not so popular in other parts of the country. Just wanted to ask you, if it is established term for you, which you would use in everyday communication, or if this was just a exception? Best regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. In English we more usually say The Czech Republic. I guess I was just writing too fast. At the time when Czechoslovakia split I was working in (mostly) Germany with colleagues from several different countries, and I guess that is when I got used to thinking of the country as Czechia (though presumably a German would spell it differently - Tschechien according to wikipedia-de). Do you have a preference (when speaking English)? I assume you are from Moravia, so not necessarily pushing the word they like in Bohemia, but maybe I am reading too much (or the wrong things) into what you write.

I note that if ever I visit the Czech Republic I must be polite because anyone I meet may be carrying a loaded gun. I have been warned. One of John le Carré's best books (I think Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy starts from the shooting of a British spy in Czechoslovakia, but that is from before 1989. I worked in Switzerland for a couple of years, and I was certainly not aware that colleagues came to work with concealed weaponry: though in one or two cases maybe .... No.

Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Switzerland many times (my grand-aunt emmigrated there in 1968). Uncle had some 50 guns at home and if I remember correctly, he told me that if he goes to the streets he has to have them visibly. However I don't remember whether he had to unload them when on the way to the shooting range and back. Finally, he also had a sniper rifle with silencer, which is definitely not legal even there, so he might had not been the right person to ask about gun legislation of Switzerland :)

Actually I am from Silesia, from part called Zaolzie (one day, when I will be full of energy and have enough time, I will have to address issues like Zaolzie, which reflects more Polish side, and similar issues concerned with Sudeten Germans, reflecting German views). However, I studied in Olomouc. I would never use term "Czechia", but it is not really an issue for me, if somebody else uses it. I was just surprised, because I really encounter this only from the group of people I mentioned above.

Tschechien is the German term. They have another one: "Tschechei", which was originally meant in insultive way, however it is now mainstream German. So I never know whether the person means to insult, or not.

I don't think that regular gun-owners should concern you when visiting the Czech Republic. They can loose the licence even for a small (but violent in nature) misdemeanor, or for driving under influence, so generally they hold back in order to have the gun also next day. I have never been afraid of that (also, I am not the type that would provoke a reaction justifying legitimate self-defence use of a firearm ;) ), more of low-lives with knives. I read that it is becoming issue also in UK with all the Polish immigrants being used to pack blades all the time.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia. I used to visit Rybnik regularly in the 1990s. Good and interesting people and excellent food. (Also I was working for an American company then. Polish people were very pro-American in the 1990s and the business people wished for investment from American corporations). But the area felt as if it was half-owned by the coal business, and one always had a bad throat from the dust in the air: maybe today the air is cleaner.

It would be interesting to get more Moravian/Czech side perspective on Zaolzie. There seems to be a lot of history there, and it is true that Silesian history tends to be understood in England in terms of conflicts between Germany/Prussia and Poland (and earlier Austria). Well, that's an exaggeration. Most people in England don't have a clue where Silesia and Moravia are. Even for those of us who like maps, when there are no coast-lines and the rivers are only small rivers and the political frontiers move a lot, it is hard to understand and remember what is where. And for people who don't worry about history, the news media here mostly only tell you about places where people make their news in English. When I moved to the Netherlands I suddenly heard about places I'd barely thought about like Surinam and Guiana and the (formerly Dutch) Antilles. At the same time, there seemed to be a whole lot less news from places like India and Egypt (though of course you hear about the USA itself from everywhere in Europe). Then when you go to Germany, most of what is happening seems to be happening in Germany. And you slip off to the south, and suddenly you find yourself reassured that the really interesting stuff is what happens in and around Basel. Because that's how the world looks in the Basler Zeitung. Well, maybe it's not so surprising.

People in England were better informed about central Europe in my parents' generation than now, simply because of the refugees who had settled here from central Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. But these are now mostly died from old age, and their children are more interested in today than in their parents' traumatic need to leave their homelands.

Well, this doesn't get things done. I just found these thought triggered while I was looking for reasons to hold off looking at emails likely to be less interesting than looking at wikipedia. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually not, the air in Silesia is considerably worse. It is said that the area caught between the industries surrounding Ostrava and Katowice has currently the worst air in the EU, with health limits being broken for larger part of the year. The heavy industry keeps producing in far larger amounts compared to previous communist times (at least on the Czech side) while the local authorities don't push the owners to put into use new technologies, which would easily solve the problem (moreover, the current owners got the plants almost for free, before the economic crisis hit, most of them had yearly profit higher than was the original purchase price). Unfortunately the unemployment, which has arisen after fall of communism, is still rather high, so no politician is willing to walk the tight rope and play blind.

The coal mining definitely makes the place what it is. I studied high school in Karviná, which is now located some 5 or more kilometers from the original undermined place. The coalmining is now already on the front steps of the new Karviná, so I don't expect my grandchildren to be able to visit that town.

Anyway it is nice to learn that you were working rather close to where I used to live. I was travelling through Rybnik a couple of times, but I think I never made a stop there.

About focus of the news, I know what you mean. The only information that I get here in Germany about the Czech Republic is when the police manage to catch some Czech crooks, who robbed a gas station or stole a car. And similarly, from reading Czech newspapers, it sometimes seems that there is neverending line of German paedophiles being imprisoned in the CR. The Brits have the upper hand as the kids all around the world learn quite a lot about UK during English language lessons.

I am finished with the Czech gun politics article, when I will have time, I will try to improve the faculties of Olomouc Uni. As usually, Tatra articles get postponed...

Have a nice start of the new week. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on the article. Could you please take a look at it, if you have time? If you think it needs more information regarding some section, please tell me.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting. I'll put it on the list. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you check the photos in Ardea article, someone says those photos are not Ardeas. What means "The radiator shell is the giveaway." I cant see any difference in it between Aprilia or Ardea.

rgds -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both these images were uploaded with the name Lancia Ardea - one by me and one by Luc106. However, the cabriolet file has since had its name changed to Lancia Aprilia. The picture of the sedan which I uploaded has not had its name changed.

My honest answer to you is that I do not know. I have asked Luc. He is Italian. I think he lives in Italy. I think he has seen more Lancias than I have.

No more thoughts on the cabriolet.

If you look at the louvres on the side of the bonnet/hood on the sedan/saloon, the pattern seems to be different between the two models. On the face of it, using just the wikipedia images, the louvre pattern on my sedan image does indeed follow the Aprilia. Not the Ardea. BUT there were four different versions of the Ardea made. It is also possible that the louvre pattern was common to (for example) both cars, but only in the >1949 (or whatever) cars.

So, I am about 66% persuaded that both cars are indeed Aprilias. If our information were not nameless, I'd put it higher. But I hope to receive replies from people more knowledgable than I am in order to change that 66% to >95% or <5%. For now, I apologize for being indecisive...

Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles :) In my opinion that is a 1937 Lancia Aprilia, in a very bad shape indeed. The best picture to compare it to is probably this one http://www.fiatgroupautomobilespress.com/download/SYSTEM_ARCHIVIO/SYSTEM_GALLERY_STORICHE/2-3-378.jpg - the website http://www.fiatgroupautomobilespress.com/ looks like an official archive published by Fiat.

Hope i've been helpful - Ciao :)--Itemirus^{Message me!} 19:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. it is the 1937 model because on the italian wiki it says that the first model (1937) was not equipped with the side footboards (or sill? Q. what is the correct word? A. The correct word (phrase) is running boards. Though the people who used the word routinely have mostly died of old age by now. Either that. or they own a Volkswagen Maggiolino. ) that was installed on the later models. So either the car in the picture is a 1937 model, or the footboards went missing. Also it seems that the headlights have been replaced, because the original ones were not equipped with a yellow turning light , while the ones in your picture do.--Itemirus^{Message me!} 06:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. You confirm what I (more recently) was thinking about this.

Putting those orange indicator lights on old cars in place of the old flippers (english usage of the time) or trafficators (USand contemporqry usage both sides of the Atlantic) seems to be almost universal on old timers in England. I do not know if it was mandatory, but whatever the motivatio, it seems to be strong. Regards Charles01 (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Italians I asked think the image I uploaded as An Ardea is actually an image of the Aprilia. One answered here and one answered on my Commons talk page. It seems the cars are very similar, but the Aprilia has a longer hood/nose, which presumably results from a longer engine block. I am also told that the front grill surround is slightly different, but I have difficulty seeing this for myself. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great you get this solved. thanks -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am wondering, what should be the optimal maximum size of faculties subsections. Do you think it could be a good idea to break them into separate articles, leaving only introduction in the main University article? I will definitely do that with Faculty of Philosophy (also in order to merge it with Philosophical Institute), which is quite a mess, as somebody wrote down all the possible subjects (or at least it looks like that). However I am not sure how good idea it is when it comes to other faculties (and I will surely not do it with faculty of health sciences, about which there is not much to write). Maybe also the medical faculty could get own page, as there are many UK and US students...?

Initially I thought about deleting the history introduction of the faculties while incorporating the faculties historical details into the main history section, but I have decided not to do it: you have cleaned the history section very nicely and it would be stupid to mess it up again. So if not anything else, when I find time I will work more about the interesting stuff about faculties, as you have proposed, while leaving historical details as introduction, and making (at least) separate article about philosophy, possibly also medicine. Does that make sence? Best Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you write makes sense. You know the subject much better than I do, so I hesitate to share my thoughts further. However, having hesitated, here are some reactions:

I do not think you will get a consistent answer on this. Education in England and America, where it is good and where it is bad, encourages people to "think for themselves". In France (auch in der BRD) they're not quite so frightened telling kids what to do and how to do it. In school you get more rules and guidelines, and so in adults you tend to get a more consistent approach between different wiki-contributors from different bits of the country even if they never met one another. Why should you care? Well, I've been looking at the French entries on the French departments, and they have a fairly consistent structure. Each subsection starts with "See [[[____link to a detailed entry]]] for more details". Look at Ain (département) to see what I mean. Look at one or two of the other department entries to see how consistently/flexibly it is applied. I'm not necessarily thinking you should do the same with the "Faculty subsections" for Olomouc Uni, but this might give you some background thoughts about structure which you can digest and modify or reject as you wish.

How about drafting a summary section for each faculty trying to keep each one below 1,000 words? Within those 1,000 words, maybe maximum of 300 should be about the history of the faculty. (But these are Richtlinien: not rules. You may easily think 400 and 800 or 250-500 and 1,000-2,500 are better numbers.)

Where you have the most information you will have a lot of prunings, and the best of these (whether that turns out to be 110% or 5%) can form the starting point for a detailed entry on the individual faculty.

I think that as long as it's information and it's interesting to readers somewhere (anywhere...) other than the ones who wrote it, and especially if its well sourced, it belongs in wikipedia.

But there may be people who see that Olomouc Uni has already a long entry of its own, and really does not "deserve" a separate hierarchy of entries, one on each faculty. So it's important to have plenty of source notes ab initio, and plenty of answers to the question "why should I be reading this?" You seem to be ahead of me here, with your mention of the high number of UK and US students currently members of the Medical Faculty. Then again, if any of the lecturers or alumni are famous, we all love celebrities, which also plays to the wikipedia notabilty guideline. We've all heard of a few Czech politicians: if Dubček (or indeed Husák or Havel) had studied at one of the faculties of Olomouc, it would be worth mentioning. And if any of the current crop of lecturers is famous with his fellow lecturers at Harvard or Berkley or indeed, in the UK, Oxbridge, that's worth highlighting. On the other hand, if you can't find more than 1,000 words on a faculty, I don't think it's worth pretending: this faculty does not deserve a separate wiki entry until someone comes along who can find more interesting stuff. Probably it does not deserve more than 500 words in the Olomouc Uni entry itself.

BUT all I can give you is my opinions. I am not an expert on the wikipedia guidelines, many of which I find about as consistent as the Christian bible (with apologies if you revere the bible for its consistency). If you ask the same question to someone else, his reply will be quite different from mine, and probably just as good or better!

Success Charles01 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for some margin - what should be the maximum length of a faculty subsection within the article. 1000 seems reasonable, thank you for the advise.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. Despite understanding your explanation as regards conservative/liberal gun use, I haven't sorted this mess out in the CZ gun politics article. The introduction talks about conservative with meaning easy to get a gun, while the rest of it talks about liberal, with the same meaning. I gave it a thought and then I figured out that it would be best to leave it to native speaker. I hope you don't mind. Have a nice evening. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be assured, that if I had thought of an easy answer I would have applied it. But ... yes, there must be an answer somewhere. Maybe if I go back to bed, I'll have thought of it when I wake up. Trouble is, I don't have available time for going back to bed just now.

Weekend was disrupted because our IS went down for nearly 24 hours. We seem to have ended up with the most dysfunctional ISP (Internet Service Provider) in England, but I haven't switched yet, partly because I'm not sure the others are better enough for all the trouble from having a new email address. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I am back at work on faculties with aiming at introducing interesting stuff, starting with sex abuse case and imports from poland at the faculty of theology. Might need some rewording, but I think it should be generally OK, so you don't need to get into it. I will now look at other Faculties, damn, I am looking forward to be done with that article :) Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have put your nice image of a 1933 Daimler on the Daimler page but I would like to be able to offer more info. Can you fill in the blanks? Can you correct me on any points? (e.g. you say cabriolet, I say dhc, maybe a sedanca de ville? - dummy hood irons) Can the owner be easily traced through the licence number? Can you provide any more pics of pre-war Daimlers? Thanks. Eddaido (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though you know more about this car than I do. I photographed it at a classic car show, and if the owner had been around and happy to talk I'd have maybe quizzed him about the car. But (1) he wasn't and (2) without taking notes .... I'm afraid I'm not really a Daimler expert. I get pretty confused about the ones they made when I was alive, but when it comes to the ones built before I was, I'm very much a beginner. I generally get information about cars from that period from Culshaw and Horrobin's catalogue of British Cars 1895 - 1975, but I don't think he has a picture of this precise body type.

The car is clearly owned by an enthusiast, and it may be that by using google you can find a Daimler Enthusiasts' Club. I think I took the picture at an old time show at Billericay in Essex, England, so the car is most likely kept in Essex, London, Herdfordshire or Suffolk. Thus the M25/M11 axis. A Daimler enthusiasts' club just, might be able to provide contact details of the owner.

I think the police can easily trace the owner from the license plate, but I think they are only meant to do that when the car has committed a sin Anyhow, I'm not a policeman. The UK tax collectors' data base does provide some basic information, if you follow the link highlighted by a friend on Talk:Jaguar Mark VIII, click on the vehicle enquiry option and do what it says, you can get the declared engine capacity and date of first registration. The data there are not always right, but usually they are and in any case they make a starting point. I tend, these days, to include them in the file name when uploading images of old cars when they are there and unless they are clearly wrong. (EG for US cars individually imported to the UK tax collector often shows the engine capacity in ccs but the value they quote is the cubic inches value, so you get the impression of a very large car powered by some kind of an upmarket lawn mower engine...)

There are still a few of these old Daimlers around in this corner of England, and I'll certainly keep an eye open for them if I go to any old timer shows this summer. (And I certainly plan to.) Meantime, hare are a couple more of "mine" that I picked up in recent years. If I have any pictures of unuisual cars that are any good, I have already uploaded them to wikipedia, so I'm afraid I'm not sitting on any.

Also thank you for being appreciative of a picture I uploaded and taking the trouble to say/write so. Definitely good for the soul which currently needs a boost, being somewhat lowered by a heavy cold combined with exhaustion following a shopping trip involving a long drive (not in an old Daimler but in a modern rather underpowered mpv: but you shouldn't wish to argue with 55mpg). My wife has the cold too, as does my son: we think he donated it from school, but he is getting better, so I guess there is hope for the rest of us. Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this is awful, it is the height of summer here and right now I'd prefer your location - without the virus. I put Daimler VE9333 into Google and it brought up this! http://www.motorbase.com/auctionlot/by-id/272999421 At least it confirms my id made from Daimler Century provided by the local library - do you remember, was the man by the car really more than seven feet tall? I had already added your pic of the torpedo bodied car to the article. Hesitated about the 1939 limo - it is So discreet and tasteful and well, bland. And yet Chrome Wire wheels, gawd. Please add more Daimler photos direct to the article(s) about the cars I will watch with interest. I'd rather like to add the Tatra one above to that article but . . . . Eddaido (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful thing, google.

I think "bland" was the point of the Daimler limo. Maybe the rich and famous kept their heads down back then. On the subject of summer, it would have been a much better picture (of the dark red limo) if the sun had shone at the right moment. I hope you're having a calorifically restrained summer. My in-laws had apples cooking on the trees in SA a couple of seasons back. I guess the answer is to stick to the nuts. (Pistaccio). But monoculture has it's own disadvantages. The man by the car (back to the first Daimler) looks a normal height to me. And his body language suggests he is, like me, a "tourist" rather than an owner. There's a younger guy looking at the ...(Austin???) next door who might be taller but it's impossible to tell, and frankly I don't get the point of the question, tho no doubt it's obvious once one knows.

I like that Tatra picture a lot, but by the time I took it there were already several excellent Tatraplan pictures in wikipedia, and I've a nasty feeling I have more than my "fair" share of car pictures accompanying wikipedia articles, due to my sneaky habit of filling in gaps. But one doesn't like to overload entries with images, and I imagine in any case that they'd get pruned out if one did. I guess that's one reason I've been concentrating on the older cars for which there are fewer pictures around. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its just that the DB15 looks more substantial in a photo of the standard saloon. Do you think the Daimler article is overloaded with pictures? I'd like it to end up with galleries under each section, veteran, vintage etc showing an example of each factory supplied saloon, one for each major model change. Right now it has too many postwar pictures (I'm not going to pull them out, whoever put them in can do that), not enough pre-war and nothing that shows what the big limousines were really like. Some models already have individual articles. Eddaido (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, it's a matter of opinion. I think the Daimler entry has the right number of pictures, and that they are logically positioned. My quibbles are that (1) it would look better if all the pictures were the same width and (2) these are not necessarily the pictures I would have chosen. Also, reverting to the "matter of opinion" theme, there are many different screen configurations and indeed screen sizes. The way the Daimler page is laid out works well for my combination of screen size, screen shape, screen distance, screen angle, glasses/spectacles and the way the sun comes into this room before breakfast at certain times of years. By the same criteria, I don't much care for galleries because the pictures, for me, the way my screen is located, are a bit too small. BUT each of us has his own computer set-up, and while I tend to set up pictures in a line down the right side (as on that Daimler entry) when I'm creating (well, in my case usually simply translating) a new car entry, I would hesitate long and hard before changing a different lay-out. I suppose if you have sufficiently powerful views you can justify what you want to do on the associated talk page and then, after two weeks when no one has reacted, do it and see what happens. But you may feel that your presumably limited wiki-hours can be more usefully spent. Sorry this sounds negative: I live, now, in England. Charles01 (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My (unsought) advice would be that here the Morris commercial vehicles were Cowleys with painted grilles and not with shiny Oxford grilles like the one in yr photo. I think I'm trying to say it can't be both a Cowley and an Oxford! Eddaido (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably old brochures or even workshop manuals around somewhere which would settle the matter. I realise that my own chief source of knowledge here is the english language wikipedia entry on the Marris Cowley, so probably I'm not in a position to try and arbitrate between any competing versions of truth from outside wikipedia. It's also possible that retrospective convention has become so overwhelming that it should not be resisted. Today everyone (well, everyone who cares enough to have a view) knows what you mean by "Jaguar Mark I". But no one used that name until they replaced the Jaguar 2.4/3.4 with the Jaguar Mark 2 (Or Mark II if you prefer the Roman version: contemporary publicity and journalistic copy is not consistent, I think.) And there may be enthusiasts who have hybridised Morris Cowley vans, putting on Morris Oxford grills ten years later. It certainly happened with Ford Anglia vans. The uncertainty (at least for me) is increased because Morrises of that time and type were little loved at the time and most had rusted away long before a few dedicated souls woke up to the idea that they were part of our national heritage. Since my own first car was a (quite old even then, but as a model much more commercially successful and widely appreciated by enthusiasts) Morris Minor, I guess I probably should myself have learned to love and understand my first car's big sister. Not sure I have, though. Hmmmm Charles01 (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent, I need help from a historically-minded city-editor interested in cars. I have just added a large section to Jowett because I was browsing something like 1400 images in Commons and was distracted by a Javelin with which I was at one time very intimate. I have probably unwisely added the original-finish image and then mentally noted the inadequacy of the description of the business's downfall. I have doubtless overdone it with my addition. I am glad to be a long way from Yorkshire if Idle, but I just might live near a Yorkshireman who is about to become inflamed by my efforts. Your experienced modification-to-suit of my Bold attempt is anxiously requested. Eddaido (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything screamingly wrong with what you write. It's interesting. I could go through it and modify the style so it looks more like my style and less like yours. I might do that. As a general "wiki" comment, they say that you should source absolutely everything. Well, much of wikipedia is a long way from that. But what you should do is avoid giving the impression that your opinion is involved in what you write. "It would seem that..." is a bad way to start a sentence. "Contemporary commentators offered the jugdgment that..." with a source note to The Times achieves the same thing without giving the impression that you're working through a personal grudge from 50 years back. Otherwise ... at least in this case ... the more overtly factual stuff makes it very clear what was going on, and I'm not sure the "it would seem that..." (or rather "The new owners would seem to have...") adds much. Maybe you could add something a little weaker. Hang on, I've an idea.

Well, I've duly savaged the opening para. But I stress that part of what I've done is simply to replace your style with mine. If you don't like it, feel free to improve on my efforts or to reverse them completely. I'll resist the temptation to do anything more till I've seen your reaction to what I just did... Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did that (first bit) very nicely indeed thank you, and on top of that you rise early. I went in to tackle my too variable tenses and found you had been at it just as I updated. Miraculously without a crash/clash. I'm concerned that most of the article is now about the, let's face it, rather silly end of the business. I could revise and improve but I'd have to leave it alone for many months before it would come naturally and so read better, right now I would just hack at it. Please do as much as you feel you can. Even if that's no more, thank you very much and too for the sound advice Eddaido (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I really suggest "Contemporary commentators offered the judgment that..."? I find this appalling verbose / pompous.

Anyhow, I have a long wiki-todo list (as who does not?) but this subject is indeed something that interests me and my intention is to come back to it. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Garel Rhys has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Closedmouth (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Charles01, that car always stood out for me, just like the Scirocco on top of your page, you don't happen to have one of those by any chance?, looking for a front windshield for mine — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Scirocco is another striking design from approx forty years back, but no, I'm afraid I have to drive a family car. (And I think I would be too tall for the Scirocco, though I remember having a lot of fun with my boss's Golf GTI MK1 in the late 1980s.)

As for the Ro80, that was always a very special car. The one in the picture that you tidied up was my father's car. Usually he drove rear engined Volkswagens, but suddenly he splashed out on this wonderful Ro80 which didn't really need to slow down for corners at all. Shame they took so long to sort out critical engine materials. And seriously sad that two years after he got the Ro80 the world hit an oil price shock. It was back to boring cars after that. Charles01 (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles,

foremost thank you for finishing the Arson attack article. Meanwhile, I did Karel Slavíček and Jakub Kresa. I believe that the first one should be fine, but I would like to ask you, if you could please copy-edit the latter. It is full of history so it might be interesting for you. But it is also full of mathematics, which was quite hard for me to translate it in comprehensible way, and I am really not sure whether I did a good job. Thank you very much!Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These both look interesting. I'll add them to the list. Maybe do them before some of the others listed, since they look relatively short. (For reasons that have nothing to do with wikipedia I don't have so much wiki-time available just now.) Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, what you mean. I actually keep postponing quite a few non-wiki related important things and continue writing articles. So far so good, I will see how long I can keep on doing that :) Thank you for your help!Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the copy-edits. Could you please take a look also at Josef Vratislav Monse and Societas eruditorum incognitorum in terris Austriacis? If my requests become too much of a burden, just tell me. I really appreciate your copy-editing, it is the most thoroughly done copy-editing anybody has been so far doing for me. It feels good to know that my work does not sound like Czenglish to readers. Once more thank you.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They look interesting. I'll take a look. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles, I just wanted to give you update regarding the Vítkov arson attack of 2009. One perp's sentence was cut to 18 years, the rest remained.

Thank you for the work on Slavíček and Kresa!

Best regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You posted file Bentley T2 reg 1977 6750 cc.JPG to WikiCommons. According to your description, it should be a Bentley T2. I'm definitely sure it is a T2 LWB, as the car has a Everflex-roof which was quite common with the LWB and (especially with a Bentley) rare to very rare with a SWB. I also believe that the back doors are the long version but this is difficult to be sure about because of the angle. The wheel trim caps are of a much later period and don't fit this car.

Do you have an opportunity to find out whether it's a LWB? There were just 10 T2 LWB built. Sorry for any mistakes, English isn't my native language. If you want to answer please write to User:Freud at the Germany wikipedia (my username is used by someone else in your wiki).-- 84.56.108.169 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Es tut mir Leid. When I photographed it I did not notice whether or not it had a long wheel base: there is not so much difference in the length with these cars. It was at a classic car show that I photographed it, and if I see it at another classic car show this summer I will try and remember to look more closely. The number 914 (Kennzeichen Nr.) is quite memorable for a car enthusiast because of the Porsche 914 from about the same time. I remember that the vinyl (ok ... "Everflex") roof was a feature of the lwb version of the Shadow/T in the 1970s, but of course Rolls-Royce/Bentley would have put a vinyl roof on anything if the customer had asked for it. And vinyl roofs were fashionable in the 1970s.

I am very sorry that I do not have a better answer at present.

(+ Your English is much clearer than my German.)Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Charles, we will soon be moving The Kehl railway bridge to a name conforming to the WikiProject Germany conventions. I welcome you to discuss the naming. Regards, Eddyspeeder (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Charles, thank you for your comment on my talk page. I myself do not feel very strongly about the actual naming, just about consistent application; I would be fine with using "bridge" everywhere because I associate it with those charming old single-arch stone bridges crossing a little stream, whereas viaduct makes me think of concrete and traffic.

As for using bridge for the sake of making it easier to understand; my experience is one learns through encountering words that conflict with the current word use hypothesis. A user wondering "Huh, why is Brücke translated as viaduct?" is on the verge of learning a new word. For those however who have a long way to go, I am glad there is [simple.wikipedia.org]. I would agree that if a word has fallen into disuse, it had better be omitted. Your wife may concur that the book "Gewassen Vlees" is a tough nut to crack because of all its obscure words.

Oh and you should check out South Park in German; it's hilarious! I was on holiday there and came across it while zapping. Cheers! --Eddyspeeder (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]