On 6 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Karl Wilhelm Fricke, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Karl Wilhelm Fricke has been called the "pope for resistance, opposition and oppression" in the former German Democratic Republic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Wilhelm Fricke. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Karl Anders

added a link pointing to Britain

Klaus Wiegand

added a link pointing to Gunner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Albert Hotopp

added a link pointing to Britain

Anna Leibbrand

added a link pointing to Esslingen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Max Roscher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frauenstein. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Peter Abrassimov, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this entry, I think there is still quite a lot of information in Polish Wikipedia and in Russian sources which I have not sufficiently accessed, and my initial thought is that it should probably be expanded before becoming a DYK candidate. Still, maybe putting it up for a DYK would bring in potential contributors with better Russian and Polish than mine (not much of a challenge, alas, especially for a member of Wikipedia Project Poland such as yourself!) able to add materially from Polish and Russian language sources. Regards Charles01 (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Peter Abrassimov, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angelika Bahmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trainer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In late February 2010, you added a large amount of information to the Bugatti Royale article, most of which was sourced from an article by H. G. Conway on pages 17 to 20 of the 8 February 1969 issue of Motor.

I have formatted the Bugatti Royale article in a way that makes it easier to display the page number from which the information was taken from the source.

Is the 8 February 1969 issue of Motor still available to you? If so, would you please look through the articles and match the citations here to the respective page numbers in Motor?

I understand that this would be a large amount of input for a fairly trivial output, so I would understand if you would not want to go to the trouble. I just figured I had nothing to lose by asking.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sam. Noted. But.... (and yes, thank you for the "please feel free to say "no"" bit). Probably that's all you actually needed to read, but this does raise a thought that I've had over the months, and one more "excuse"/"reason" which I'm happy to share before getting on with the rest of Monday.

Dear Sam, I have seen you rearranging source notes on various occasions over the last year or two (might be ten, but I don't think it is). The way in which you do it means that when I move my eyes from the "inline" number to the "references" section of the page, I then have to move my eyes again, and engage several extra brain cogs, to figure out where and what the source itself actually is. I can get quite "nerdy" about following up source notes: I do it quite a lot, and frankly, making me look at an extra bit of page slows down the process. All this is vanishingly low down my list of "what matters", but other things being equal, I think I prefer "my" way of doing source notes to yours. BUT I am not a typical wikipedia reader, and I guess the most important customer for what we do is the wikipedia reader. If you can tell me a good reason - ideally several good reasons - why your way of doing source notes is quicker (or in other ways better) for the reader, I can try to be open minded. You might even persuade me to change the way I've been doing source notes myself for these past many years, if there is a really good reason - better still if there are several really good reasons - for doing so. The way I "do" source notes I simply learned by copying other people. I claim no special expertise on the subject. I've always (well, ever since I figured out a way to enter source notes myself) been aware that different people do it in different ways, and the wiki software is evidently set up to permit different approaches according to .... I don't know what. Maybe the underlying point is simply people with a background in computing have their brains wired differently from people with a background in .... well, my degree was in History, but that feels like a long time ago these days. I have enough numeracy skills to check that I've not been "done over" in the shops, but I never got through to Calculus; and I learned about computers from an Apple Mac which was a computer designed to be used by people who never thought they could understand computers. Too much information? .... Yup, almost certainly. But, with apologies for being repetitive, I have no very strong opinions on how to do source notes. I'm just happy to have found a way that seems to work. And more than happy to accept - as we all must - that we all approach wikipeida with our mental processes and assumptions to a large extent "preformed", and for those of us more than about 20 years old most of the preforming was done while we communicated on paper by using a mechanical type-writer. (Unless people could read your writing - but that never really worked for me.)

On the Magazines I still have them, but they are not indexed and they are stored in about ten large plastic boxes weighing approx 40Kg each in the loft. They are dry and adequately protected against the weather, I hope. I opened them up one by one and had piles of old magazines in my "office" for a bit more than half a year, back in 2010, and went through them seeing what I could glean for wikipedia. No doubt if I were to do it again I'd glean slightly different stuff. But it was quite a major exercise, and I've no plans to do it again any time soon.

Sorry not to write simply "yes". And thank you for all the work you've done on the car articles over the years. For what it's worth (and of course it's only my opinion) you've taught me a lot of new information and tidied up a lot that needed tidying without destroying information in the process. I appreciate all that and I think it makes wikipedia more useful for people who know less about some of these subjects than you and I do, but who, for their own reasons, wish to access more info. But that said (written), no, you haven't persuaded me about a different approach to formatting source notes. Success. Charles01 (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for not answering earlier; I had mostly prepared a reply on Tuesday, then I went to do some errands, got into an accident, and just got home from the hospital. I can't access the computer so I'm on a tablet now.

Long story short: I don't think it is quicker than your way, but it's more thorough. It allows the citations to have the page number(s) relevant to the statement being made and the reference to have all the page numbers relevant to the chapter or article in question.

Thank you for going in depth with the "no"; it's definitely food for thought.

40 kg boxes! Can't blame you for not wanting to go through those again at all!

Thank you for the appreciation, for your open-mindedness, and for your contributions through the years.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The habit/instinct in me for always wanting to have the last word is not necessarily a good one and I'm still working on it. Nevertheless .... I had not necessarily expected you to reply, but since you did, thank you for doing so and for understanding. I wish you speedy and total recovery from the residuals of that accident, and that any related administrative nasties will be resolved without undue hassle. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can I tempt you to put your name down for this project? You don't have to do anything different, it's just a loose association of people who translate from other wikis. Each month we have a stub focus, and you can list 10 French or German articles from a given subject needing transwikying etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Dr.B. Done that. I have a trusting nature and "You don't have to do anything different" sounds good to me.

My own selection of articles that need translating tends to be based, in no particular order, on (1) "What needs doing to make wikipedia "better"?" and (2) "What will be educative/interesting for me to read around a bit?" (The answers, in both cases, take a little longer than the questions.) The only languages, beyond English, with which I am sufficiently familiar to be useful in this context are French and German.

Success Charles01 (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, soon we'll have another German one put up, Gerda Arendt can decide which for June, probably a batch of musicians or festivals to be translated from de wiki, so anything you can create towards German and French articles put up on Wp:intertranswiki would be really helpful. Naturally this is why we run the project to tackle systematic bias and make it a better resource!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm ..... I tend to avoid the musician articles because they seem to attract more than their fair share of toxic territoriality. Gerda, of course, is an exceptionally sweet one, neither toxic nor territorial at all, but sadly there's only one of her and anyhow, you no doubt knew that already. Obviously I hate systematic bias, though I'm painfully aware that it can very often be defined according to the vantage point of the beholder, and people can choose some very odd corners from which to view the world. (I'm sure they say the nicest things about me, too.) Perhaps I need to go back to the Project Page and see how it defines systematic bias.... Happy days Charles01 (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply looked at your recent articles like Barbara Thalheim, a musical personality. While it is true that the top composers/opera articles tend to have conflict, standard missing articles on musicians are unlikely to be battle grounds. Also there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Missing articles:Bach Cantatas site which I've been meaning to finish sometime..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that Beethoven and Handel are no top composers? - Starting 7 June, I will go over the Bach cantatas by liturgical year, improving recordings as a sortable list, as already in BWV 22. It would be a goal to have them all free of red links over the year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, the ones which are red linked in existing cantata articles you can embolden and add a key note at the top so they become more priority :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I will do that as I notice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you start a DNB entry can you ensure on wikisource the link to wikipedia is there like this. That will take it out of the missing articles category!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks. I'll embolden a bit of what you write in order to increase the chances of (1) remembering and (2) being able to find it if I don't. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Really appreciate your work on here and assistance at the Intertranswiki project!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

When you click on a link to an article, you now see more information:

The link tool has been re-designed:

There are separate tabs for linking to internal and external pages.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has created new interfaces for the link and citation tools, as well as fixing many bugs and changing some elements of the design. Some of these bugs affected users of VisualEditor on mobile devices. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. The worklist for April through June is available in Phabricator.

A test of VisualEditor's effect on new editors at the English Wikipedia has just completed the first phase. During this test, half of newly registered editors had VisualEditor automatically enabled, and half did not. The main goal of the study is to learn which group was more likely to save an edit and to make productive, unreverted edits. Initial results will be posted at Meta later this month.

Auto-fill features for citations are available at a few Wikipedias through the citoid service. Citoid takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. If Citoid is enabled on your wiki, then the design of the citation workflow changed during May. All citations are now created inside a single tool. Inside that tool, choose the tab you want (⧼citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-auto⧽, ⧼citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-manual⧽, or ⧼citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-reuse⧽). The cite button is now labeled with the word "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" rather than a book icon, and the autofill citation dialog now has a more meaningful label, "⧼Citoid-citeFromIDDialog-lookup-button⧽", for the submit button.

The link tool has been redesigned based on feedback from Wikipedia editors and user testing. It now has two separate sections: one for links to articles and one for external links. When you select a link, its pop-up context menu shows the name of the linked page, a thumbnail image from the linked page, Wikidata's description, and/or appropriate icons for disambiguation pages, redirect pages and empty pages. Search results have been reduced to the first five pages. Several bugs were fixed, including a dark highlight that appeared over the first match in the link inspector (T98085).  

The special character inserter in VisualEditor now uses the same special character list as the wikitext editor. Admins at each wiki can also create a custom section for frequently used characters at the top of the list. Please read the instructions for customizing the list at mediawiki.org. Also, there is now a tooltip to describing each character in the special character inserter (T70425).

Several improvements have been made to templates. When you search for a template to insert, the list of results now contains descriptions of the templates. The parameter list inside the template dialog now remains open after inserting a parameter from the list, so that users don’t need to click on "⧼visualeditor-dialog-transclusion-add-param⧽" each time they want to add another parameter (T95696). The team added a new property for TemplateData, "Example", for template parameters. This optional, translatable property will show up when there is text describing how to use that parameter (T53049).

The design of the main toolbar and several other elements have changed slightly, to be consistent with the MediaWiki theme. In the Vector skin, individual items in the menu are separated visually by pale gray bars. Buttons and menus on the toolbar can now contain both an icon and a text label, rather than just one or the other. This new design feature is being used for the cite button on wikis where the Citoid service is enabled.

The team has released a long-desired improvement to the handling of non-existent images. If a non-existent image is linked in an article, then it is now visible in VisualEditor and can be selected, edited, replaced, or removed.

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, each Wednesday at 12:00 (noon) PDT (19:00 UTC). Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal. You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q4 blocker. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the Editing team's Q4 blocker project with the bug.
• If your Wikivoyage, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or other community wants to have VisualEditor made available by default to contributors, then please contact James Forrester.
• If you would like to request the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki, please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.

Subscribe, unsubscribe or change the page where this newsletter is delivered at Meta. If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you, of all people, agree that CD (Charles Deutsch) oughtn't be a redlink much longer. Have any sources? I could probably scrape something together but I am lacking the necessary energy to start a new entry. And then we'll get it DYK?-listed for additional ego boosts.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's already an entry on Charles Deutsch. Is that the same fellow? I think it must be, though if you tell me I'm wrong I'm more than happy to plead ignorance. The question then becomes do we need an entry for the man AND the car? Or one for both together? And would I have started from here? (Probably not....) Do I have sources? Possibly, but possibly not, and it would take quite a lot of digging and it would most likely not be enough to tick "my" boxes for dyk listing. dyk is indeed a useful ego boost but I hesitate to submit stuff unless ... well, I guess unless I find it interesting! If you get to the point that you can't hold off starting something, please don't hold off on my account. If I get in first, no matter, but don't hold your breath. I THINK my preference would be to start by adding more on the cars in the existing Charles Deutsch entry while reserving the right to split out into two entries on (1) the man and (2) the cars when there's quite a bit more there. But I don't feel too strongly, if you prefer to jump in with a separate "cars" entry straight off.

I can certainly identify with "I am lacking the necessary energy ... " but that risks digressing into "too much information". Success Charles01 (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very much that Charles Deutsch! Well, CD's offshoot SERA-CD still exists although mister CD died in 1980. But yes, maybe it's the "too much info" that hinders me. We'll see what happens.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of completing a new article about this Paris coachbuilder copying from French Wikipedia. I am very likely to have made bad mistakes. Please would you glance at it and correct same. It seems there are many Paris coachbuilders unaccounted for in this WP have you considered giving them some coverage here? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to jump in on this. We all use English differently, and inevitably if I do it every phrase will be different. But it won't be any better, and you will no doubt conclude that I've downplayed important things and introduced gratuitously other stuff that doesn't belong and ... and.... that I've used ALLLL the WRONG ADJECTIVES.

There's clearly nothing wrong with your French. (And / or you know how to use a dictionary. Well ... yes.)

But if you don't mind an instant reaction .... some of your translation is a tad literal. "Habiller" does indeed show up in the dictionary as "dress" and no doubt if you google deshabiller (but taking the trouble to find the acute accent) you'll get nice (or not) pictures of people undressing, but in the context of coach builders I'd avoid such a literal translation and be less direct. I'd just say something like "Franay worked with prestigious / high-end automobile manufactures such as Dela..., Rolls Royce, Bugatti - or whoever it was he worked with." But that's a question of taste. Not of "right or wrong" Same with "Activity stopped in 1955". To a francophone reader it's clear what you mean, but for someone thinking in English.... "The last bodies were manufactured in 1955" or "Production ended in ...." presumably conveys the same meaning without making it so obvious that your brain is thinking in a foreign language. The Americans use a phrase along the lines "The factory was shuttered in ... " but I avoid that because in English English it sounds plain weird. Of course, in groping for a translation that (1) tells the reader what actually happened and (2) doesn't look so obviously like a translation, you might end up consulting your learned tomes and / or googling some more, so that you could (1) spell out in greater detail what actually happened and (2) give us another source note.

So like I say (write) I hesitate to rewrite what you wrote because you clearly understand what it says in French and any changes I made would be changes indeed but not necessarily improvements. Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I couldn't resist meddling anyhow. Feel free to revert where not persuaded.... Success Charles01 (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... describes that something has ups and downs, mostly used when there are severe downs ("life is like a roller-coaster"), - we don't have to faithfully translate every whim (also called POV) of a German poet writing a Wikipedia article, - "translated" is only to give credit to some original author ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you, Gerda. I suppose part of my difficulty with this particular entry is that I know very little about the world of rock music. So I'm more inclined to apply the poetry of the other fellow, for better or worse, than to try and dredge up my own concerning a planet I never inhabited. You may say that poetry - anyone's poetry - has no place in an encyclopaedia in the first place, but then we get into the challenge of identifying and defining poetry. And in any case, I don't think any of us wants to make wikipedia so dry and scholarly that the reader loses the will to live. Just thinking on paper, you understand. You're under no obligation to agree. Nor even to read it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you understand me better than you know ;) - I like poetry, and use it, - only if the translation causes you headaches, forget it, keep simple, - there's the German page for those who want it. - I have written many biography articles but never said in the lead that a career was not straightforward always improving, - the facts can tell that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any period info on the 1972 Earls Court Motor Show? This guy was there and has a bunch of lovely b&w photos available, but I have a hard time finding out if there were any major introductions taking place at this show. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WONDERFUL collection, with a very high proportion of "car identification challenges". Thanks.

My joy us greatly compromised because our internet connections here depend a lot on copper wires installed back the last time when spending money the nation hadn't got was "no object" - ie during the 1940s. I followed your link, but after 4 pages it stopped downloading at all, and even before that some of the pix refused to appear. So I never got to the blackandwhite pictures. Lots of colour ones of cars mostly from the 50s and 60s, but possibly photographed at "old-timer" rallies in the 70s or 80s. No pictures of British cars, but quite a lot of cars made by a British company (BMC) in Austrlalia. Morris Major/Austin Laser, Morris Marshal etc....

But you asked a question. Motorway guides for Earls Court Motor Show. Does that mean 1972 motor show in October 1971 or 1973 motor show in October 1972? Either way, the answer is that by then they were making me do more in the way of serious exams at school, so I didn't collect motor show supplement with the fervour of 65 / 68. Also, unless the pix you have in mind are of a different generation of cars for a different market from those I found when I followed your link (pages 1-4 of the contributor's FLICKR oeuvre) then I'm not sure how relevant they'd be. You may be to young to remember, but until the 1970s the UK was not part of the EEC. (I'm not sure Sweden was either.) Tariffs had come down in the early 60s because of the "Kennedy round" tariff cuts but the UK auto-industry was still heavily protected in the early 1970s. Somewhere round 1972 the newspapers were squealing that imports were taking a massive 10% of the car market. Imports were almost all Beetles, Renaults, Fiats and (just beginning) Datsuns/Nissans. And yes, for some reason most of British automakers had stopped developing family saloons for the haute-bourgeoisie around 1962, so by 1972 Volvos were doing rather well in the UK from the mid 60s on. (Rover 2000 too cramped, Jaguars plain vulgar, and anyhow the perception was that British cars tended to break down more than Swedish ones...) That was about it. Stars at the 71/72 (for models years 72/73) motor shows would have been things like the Vauxhall Victor FE, the Ford Granada (which was in some ways an "import" as the competition were quick to let you know), Morris Marina. Frankly, the early 70s were a pretty barren period for UK auto makers in terms of new models. For adventurous "early adopters" people prepared to risk imports, Fiat 127, Renault 5 ....

If I find a better way to look at those pix, I will. Better still, if you were to send me a link more directly to the pix you were writing about, that would be a kindness. Either way, I will react with delight if you would find it helpful for me to try and identify any individual pix using a link, especially if it's a link that I can persuade to work.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS The other big show west European show was Paris. Peugeot 104

or Frankfurt/Geneva Mercedes-Benz W116 (S-Klasse)

Citroën GS Camargue this photo is one of his from October 1972. Cool, huh? His pictures are all uploaded in a big jumble and not labelled systematically, so one has to scroll through page after page - which is rather pleasant. Well, if you come upon a period Autocar or such, keep it in mind!  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I clicked on the "source" link for the Citroen pic you'd uploaded to wiki and got through to a lot more of Andrew Bone's car pix on Flickr. Still I have issues with getting so many megs to appear down the wire and on my screen, but I got through a goodly number before the thing completely stopped downloading. They're a wonderful palette of car history and a lot of them are seriously good as pictures (IMHO as I think one may be should add at this point). Fun to see the pictures the guy took >20 years ago of cars that were already of classics even then. And I've realised he labelled them - informatively and as far as I can tell very accurately - so my offer to identify some is rather beside and beyond the point. Specially liked the BMW 326 cabriolet (indoors), some of the Ferrari and Leyland P76 portraits, one from the back of the Borgward P100 ... and some of the Australian car ads. There's a lot of atmosphere of the time and place with some of those Holden pix at Australian shopping malls (?) But I think he's uploaded so many pictures, that it's really pretty random which of them I got to look at before my copper wire (or possibly my ISP, though it's a whole lot better since we switched away from Orange) lost the will to cooperate. The pictures of the little monkey on the man's hairy leg, of the crocodile, and of a girl who might or might have been pregnant because in those oh so seventies dungarees you could never really tell.... also stick in the mind. But they're not cars, so out of scope? Anyhow, thank you much. Regards Charles01 (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his stream is lovely. I did a further effort and found that he only has seven photos from Earls Court 1972, the good ones are here: [1]. Anyhow, I hadn't realize that my internet connection isn't the worst. One gets spoiled, I suppose.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the days when Citroën and flair belonged in the same paragraph. Then again, I still have some respect for Peugeot and I wish them all/both well. At the back of my mind I have the thought that you once drove a 405/406, but maybe that was someone else: either way, my father had a 305 in the 70s/80s. It would certainly be be sad if the time ever came when PSA couldn't afford to maintain the excellent museum at Socheux. Thanks for the links, anyhow. As for internet connections, it is truly horrifying aka terrifying how quickly and absolutely we have all become dependent on another technology that no one - including the people who created it - understands. But then I guess the future generally looks more alarming before you get there than after it sailed past. Generally but not always. I hope I don't feel as old as I sound. Hrmph. Charles01 (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't be all that out of touch seeing as how we are communicating right here. I used to have a 505 Turbo (points for remembering), now I have a Volvo 245. Cheers.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you, Furius or Ipigott translate from German wiki?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily put it on "the list". It ticks my "looks like it might be interesting" box. On the other hand, so do 1001 other things. So I shall not weep if someone else gets in first!

Given how many entries - many of them really quite good in terms of what I think wiipedia "is for" - there are in the German wiki, it's troubling that you have only three "project people" on whom to call for this. On the other hand, I'm really not enough of a wiki-networker to have any obvious further candidates in mind. And there is self evidently a tension - for all of us, but chiefly for you - between expanding the project to cover more ground and not wishing to it grow to the point where it becomes unmanagable. And hmmmm. Success Charles01 (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC}}

Well, there is Gerda and Bermicourt but they're usually pretty busy. And of course there was Yngvadottir, no longer with us :-(. I agree though, given the massive scale of the task and how many decent articles there are to transwiki we could do with 1000 editors like yourself. One wonders where they all are... And yes, it's very much finding a balance, I don't want to overburden anybody, myself included, I want to keep things productive, but not pressure everybody. Contributing has to be enjoyable. I could of course scale the project and merge with WP:Missing articles and get a bot to draw up a directory of every missing article on other wikis and spend all my time on here creating missing articles lists but it would be counterproductive. Unless they can reasonably be started, banks of red links will sit around untouched for years so there's no point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Xwejnusgozo who has already undertaken excellent work on Malta's fortifications could tackle this one too? The German article cites English-language sources. It would be more logical to draw on them directly rather than making a translation.--Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any decent sources on it in google books Ipigott!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to expand the article a bit. The Falca Lines are rather obscure, despite being one of the few remaining (and possibly the best preserved) entrenchments in Malta. I'll have a look at the National Inventory of Cultural Property of the Maltese Islands and MilitaryArchitecture.com to try and find more info. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are indeed a few details here.--Ipigott (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if it is coming along fine. Well done!--Ipigott (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles is a quite incredible contributor!! So is Xwej, it's really positive to have a quality editor working on Malta topics.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]