User talk:Carlstak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Carlstak! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Marek.69 talk 23:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

re: your message[edit]

Hi Carlstak, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 01:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcom Carlstak[edit]

I just wanted to let you know I ran into you on the James Dean page, as I was making my very first edit there. In turn you led me to the great, nice and welcoming Marek. Since you and I seem to be in the same place - discovering Wiki editing, etc, I just wanted to welcome you and send my thoughts your way. Good luck and have fun! Maybe I'll run into you again. However (and obviously) I'm not the to go to for many answers yet lol. Just extending my warm wishes.Jill333 (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg As thanks for all the work on Original Town of Fernandina Historic Site. Happy Thanksgiving! :) Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 20:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions[edit]

This is your personal opinion. You do not know the standards of Wikipedia. This can be seen on your opinions and very short internship at Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

How long I've been editing at Wikipedia is immaterial to whether or not my opinion is correct, and you haven't answered my question. How can you show that Barcelona is the seventh most important fashion capital in the world? What is your source for this dubious information? Your English most definitely needs improvement, as shown here: "...on your opinions". Carlstak (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Valencia[edit]

Hello. Article Valencia on the Spanish Wikipedia is significantly expanded. You well know English and Spanish, please translate this article from Spanish Wikipedia (es:Valencia) to English Wikipedia (Valencia, Spain). Subtropical-man (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors should learn to write English (discussion from [1]).[edit]

Editors who contribute text to English Wikipedia should learn to write it correctly. Carlstak (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia is open and free project, anyone can edit. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles. You do not need to know the language perfectly. You can enter the content (knowledge) to Wikipedia, if it is not perfectly written, another user could improve - this is idea of Wikipedia. Your English is maybe very good, but like a language of teacher, not typical "man" (as "John Smith"). Besides, it is puzzling that some articles have been months without change, and was ok. You come on Wikipedia and it turns out that everything is bad, everything you need to improve. Please see: [2]: left column is a test writen by many other users, right column is a test writen by... you. Both texts are well written. In other words, encyclopedia is not dictionary, this is bank of knowledge on specific topics, Wikipedia is open and free encyclopedia - anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles and this is official motto of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Valencia - references[edit]

Hi Carlstak,

First of all, I have to congratulate you because of all the great job you're doing in the Valencia article: you're doing something that should have been done ages ago! However, there's a small problem with what you're doing, and it's that you haven't added a single reference. As far as I know, Wikipedia is based on the principle of verifiability, so all the information which can be challenged should be referenced (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). --Erraticus (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, I'm quite aware of Wikipedia's policy. You realize, I am sure, that this is a work in progress. My contributions to the Valencia article were mostly the result of laborious translation and fact-checking from the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedias.
There are plenty of references in those articles, but I haven't got around to translating and fact-checking them from Spanish and Catalan.
Would you care to collaborate in this project and contribute some in-line citations and references, if you can translate from either language? Carlstak (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

John I of Castile[edit]

Ok, Carlstack, all right: my english is really very bad. As I'm going to put on the discussion the sources, we have time to make all the corrections, and it's true that someone is going to write (or correct them), because my english is awful. My best salutations, Jorge alo (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing I forgot: the article is already good, but there are some (only a few) errors and we can put it even better (and joining all the references needed). Jorge alo (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree interely with you: the great problem it's really my english (very bad). But there are also some historic nuances that are a little difficult for me to explain. for example, Leonor Teles, by the Treaty, could not proclaim them, it was necessary a proclamation by the naturals (all people that was propietary), and who said the treaty was unfair was Juan I of Castile and a part of his counselors (I think I will arrived to that passage today, maybe). But I think that with the sources and the translations, in the end all will be clear. I'm going to work on this maybe two months, or more, and I not only agree with you on not making changes before talking about it, but I even ask you to do them, after we talked, because of my bad english (I can read more or less easy, with the diccionary help, but I'm a danger on writing. Jorge alo (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A question I forgot: I think, for what you said about your translation, that you can read well portuguese and castilian, no? Jorge alo (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I welcome your contributions, Jorge, and I would be happy to collaborate with you in adding references and inline citations to the article. I travel frequently, so I may not always respond to your communications immediately, but I will usually be able to get to them within twenty-four hours.
I am not a native speaker of Castilian or Portuguese, but I read them fairly well. With time and effort I can produce good translations into English; I spend more time on fact-checking and reading sources than I do on the translation. You might find Google Translate of assistance in translating to English, it yields much better results than Babelfish. If you use Mozilla's Firefox browser, the gTranslate add-on by Pau Tomàs is especially useful and adds great functionality on any web page. Carlstak (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's work. Don't bodher with the time on answering, we have all the time on the world (I confess I have a problem with time: for me it seems that "thing" don't exist). It's enough that you read what I'm puting on the discussion page, and you can make the improvements without saying nothing to me, because as I'm going only little by little, step after step, I can easilly follow the corrections and improvements you will make on the text. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@Carlstak, there are two great errors to correct on the borders of sucession, in the end. The first, we can't separate León From Castile because, in that time, it was only a Crown. So, it´s a great mistake to say the he was a) King of Castile and B) King of León. He was King of Castile and of Leon. This article is the only one that has such border after the preceded unification of the two Crowns. Second, it's true that even João das Regras, on Cortes of Coimbra, 1385, classified John I of Castile as a pretender and as one of the possible heirs of the portuguese Crown. So, no doubt he was a recognized pretender, but, first, I think it's inedit research to say that a pretension is as tittle, and, second, a pretender can't be preceded and succeded by Kings. Logically: or he was a King preceded and succeded by kings or he was a pretender succeded and preceded by pretenders on a specific pretension. As we say in my country, we can't make the addition of oranges with apples. So, I propose the quick correction of these borders. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Jorge. I will address this today, as soon as I have a chance. Muito obrigado, Carlstak (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
My proposition: put in the end, on the center, as it is now, a «pretension» border without any «preceded» and «succeed» spaces, so, the pretension space all alone aligned with, also in the center, but above, King of Castile and León (Lord of Molina was one of his titles, but Molina was also part of the Crown of Castile and León, so we can not and do not need to discriminate). The pretension wasn't till 1385, but till his death on 1390, and we even can wonder if his strange death had nothing to do with this (but this we can't put in the article: there is no known source). So, we can put on the «pretension border» that final year: 1390. Jorge alo (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not prepared to change the title of the article to "John I of Castile and León", if that is what you mean, as it would be a major change that would require discussion on the talk page and general consensus.
The Crown of Castile, formed in 1230, did include León; it was definitely a union of the crowns and parliaments of the kingdoms of Castile and León upon the accession of King Ferdinand III of Castile to the vacant Leonese throne. The Spanish Wikipedia refers to him as Juan I de Castilla. Carlstak (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Like this, the article don't say his pretension was a title, and also don't say he was King of Portugal. Only say that he maintained his pretension during all his life, and that is true and correct to say. Jorge alo (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, Jorge. To say that "John I of Castile assumed the title and coat of arms of King of Portugal" does not imply in English that he was accepted as such by the Portuguese. It would be awkward in this context to say he pretended to the throne, since the dispute between the different factions in support or against his pretension is already made clear in the text. I've made a faithful translation of the text in Spanish Wikipedia: "Juan I de Castilla adoptó el título y armas de rey de Portugal".
As far as I can see, the article as presently written does not refer to John the I of Castile by the title of "John I of Portugal", although there is one instance where the wording can be improved to clarify that it was the Master of Aviz who became John the I of Portugal. I am making that change now. Does this satisfy your contention? Carlstak (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, Carl, I'm going to try tyo explain the problems: 1) If The Crowns where unified on one, there was only one Crown and we can't put two crowns on his head: King of Castile, King of León = two times king; two Crowns. And the name of that Crown was: «Crown of Castile and León». If he was a pretender he was not preceded, as pretender, by King Ferdinand I (King Ferdinand I was pretender to what?], not succeed by King John I. Tell me, please, John I of Castile was preceded and succeed on what? Other questions: he didn't took the arms of Portugal, he tooked the arms and mixed (mezclar) them with the arms of Castile and León. The cry of his acclamation on the streets of Toledo was «King of Castile and Portugal». His title was «King of Castile and of León and of Portugal and of Toledo, etc.» On the year of 1390, a litle before the Castilian Cortes, he said what was his problem: that the Portuguese accused him of having mixed the arms and the Kingdoms of Portugal and Castile, with the loss of independency of Portugal. So, what he proposed to his counselors? This amazing thing: to give up of the Crown of Castile, to his son Henry, so the Portuguese could accept him as King of Portugal! Amazing, no?
But let's go with cool, I have already saw you are making a big effort. I thinK we can put Ayala's text translation on the note you create about John I of Castile's issue. What you say? Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, no problem. Done. Obrigado, Carlstak (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you didn't answered to the rest of what I said and I could already ask mediation, but I'm not going to do that, because I believe you are acting on good faith, and that we two can make a good work together. Also what is wrong on the text, even some great mistakes, it is not crucial. By the way, one more: what was done November and on December 1383 was not a proclamation, it was an essay of acclamation. But we have time to clarify all this, and in the end all will be proper. I begin to like very much, on the text, the paragraph of te «issue», it's powerful, no? With all that notes. I'm going to improve the reference to the book, because it's a eigteenth century critical edition of Ayala's Chronicles, made by Eugenio LLaguno de Amirola. I'm going to continue to put excerpts of Ayala on the discussion page, and, for systematic reasons, I'm not going to traduce it, already. If you want, and if you would be so kind, you can begin traduce them. I think the text speaks to much about 1383-1385 crisis and don't speak about other important matters of is reign, so I'm going to begin to refer such matters. To clean the space, when a translation on the discussion page will be integrate on the article, I will eliminate the already integrated text of the discussion page, only referring that action: «text already integrate on the article». But, before eliminate, I'm going to do a last confrontation of the castilian text (in this case) with the original, to remove some eventual errors (it's old castilian, in this case, and I can have done some little mistakes). Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Jorge, I have bent over backwards to accommodate you. Part of the "problem" may be that your grasp of English is lacking, and consequently it is sometimes difficult to understand what you're saying, or just what exactly you want. I am curious about one thing: I made a faithful translation from the equivalent article on Spanish Wikipedia; why aren't you pressing for these changes there first, as that would seem more appropriate? Could it be because you know that the Spaniards might not accept them? The article is about a Spanish king, and you are Portuguese. You seem to have an agenda that is not strictly from a strictly neutral point of view; also, I gather you want to call King John I of Castile "King John I of Castile and León". That would violate the accepted convention here at Wikipedia and in the English-speaking world generally, as well as the Spanish-speaking one. I suggest you propose these changes (whatever they are, as I'm not sure) at Spanish Wikipedia and see what kind of reception you get. It is difficult communicating with you in English, and this is English Wikpedia, after all. Carlstak (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Till is father all the Kings are caracterized as «king of Castile and León», in the end. From him they are caracterized two times, King of Castile, King of León, with their regnal titles divided. Why?
Soon, more four or five days, and I will also go, I hope, in Wikipedia on Spanish. But I'm going to resolve this matter, speaking of agendas, here, on english. This is a problem since 2007, lots of time before I entered Wikipédia, on 2010. I've already discussed it on Portuguese, French, English, and, as you can understand, it's time to me to finish with the question. I'm going to say something in spanish about, on Wikipédia on Spanish, but I'm going to resolve the matter here, on Wikipédia on English, with my bad english. Why? Because like that historians of all over the world that write on Wikipedia can come here, to the discussion. So, "my agenda", to this matter, it's to clarify it, once for all, and with the help of the most great number possible of Wikipedian historians. So, we can list, already, the points where we do not agree, on the discussion page, and ask the mediation of historians to resolve the matter. But, at the same time, as I already told you, I'm going to continue with the work on the sources. If you want to cooperate, very well, for me. If you do not want to cooperate, it's with you, you are free to do what you want. By the way, I do not want to call him «King of Castile and León», Castile is enough. What I do not want are his regnal titles divided, as they were two Crowns, and I also want to know on what he was preceded and succeeded by King Ferdinand I and King John I, what the three have of commun on that «pretence border». Have I made myself clear? Here are two questions, already, to ask mediation. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't know what you mean, I have no idea. Please request mediation, maybe an administrator can figure out what you want and sort it out. Não faz mal. Carlstak (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What I'm going to ask is a RFC, a request for comment, and also a request of opinion to all historians of Wikipedia en. But, obviously, I shall do so after have listed the questions that I want to put. Abraço, and good night, Jorge alo (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Come join the Ainu Task Force![edit]

Greetings, saw your edits at Ainu people and thought you might like to know that we just founded the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Ainu task force. Hope to see you on the Members list! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well done![edit]

Te felicito por el artículo sobre la historia de Málaga. Magnífico.

I congratulate you for the article about the history of Malaga. Magnificent. --Alex320000 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, Señor.
Many thanks. Málaga has a special place in my heart—it is where I first saw Andalusia. Carlstak (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

James Dean[edit]

Please don't revert James Dean again. Discuss at Talk:James_Dean#Recent_article_revision_from_sandbox. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Una manita con el lenguaje[edit]

Bueno el contenido previo es un completo desastre que no se entiende nada de nada (en ningún idioma). Mi lenguaje es deficiente pero relatan coherentemente lo sucedido en América. Correcto si corrijes el lenguaje. Pero no reviertas para dejar la edición previa disparatada.--Santos30 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

¿dónde necesitas las referencias? ¿Qué es lo que no comprendes?. Habla claro.--Santos30 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
You appear to have problems with operating sock puppet accounts and edit warring. Let's have an admin take a look. Carlstak (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
But what is your interest in Americas and Spain XIX?, you go to improve the language or not?, for what you need references?. Hummm --Santos30 (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The information you're introducing is unsourced. Please provide references. Carlstak (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem with that, put cite required where you need and I put references. No ningún hay problema por eso ¿qué necesitas que te explique? Puedo ampliar detalles si lo deseas, señalame si hay algún punto que te ha inquietado excatamente qué es. Ve al grano.--Santos30 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion[edit]

Hello, Carlstak. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Santos30 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved![edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of proposal to ban Spanish articles from Did You Know?[edit]

Dear WikiProject Spain member,

There is currently a proposal to ban articles concerning a large area of southern Andalusia from appearing on the Main Page of Wikipedia in the Did you know? section. This would affect a significant number of articles within the scope of WikiProject Spain. If you have a view on this proposal, please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs‎#Proposal for one-year moratorium on Gibraltarpedia DYKs. In addition, you may have a view on an alternative proposal to lift restrictions on Gibraltar-related articles on DYK - please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs#Proposal for lifting the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs. Prioryman (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For work on the Marbella article. keep up the good work. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Work still in progress.:-) Carlstak (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Goya[edit]

Have the book by Schubert in front of me, from 1990..do you refer to the liberal triennium in your reference to this book as the civil unrest in Spain after Napoleon? 94.211.59.112 (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected the page number of the citation to 288, part of a chronology which refers to Riego's revolt beginning the Revolution of 1820, when Goya was 74. Carlstak (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
WorldDigitalLibraryLogo2.png
Hi Carlstak! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

This does not exist in the Arabic Wikipedia.

I am an Arab and I did not hear this term no once in My life.

Goodbye.

--Samer154 (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but your life experience does not count as an authoritative source. Carlstak (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg After all that work you have done on the two Kindelan brothers,you deserve a light snack. Much appreciated. Viking1808 (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Carlstak (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Costa del Sol[edit]

Hello Carlstak. First of all I would like to congratulate you for your excellent work on the article History of Malaga. Being you a person concerned about the articles of Malaga, I would ask to express its opinion in this discussion, if you would be so kind. Thanking you in advance, greetings.--LTblb (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I thank you sincerely for your editing and your comments on the discussion. Best regards.--LTblb (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting me to the situation. Carlstak (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"Clean up" of dashes.[edit]

Hi. Just to give you a heads up, I reverted this edit of yours. It appeared to only be dash format changes, which doesn't seem a helpful change (and I hope your other edits aren't similar as far as only changing dash formats) Personally I disagree that any script should change the dash format at all, but changes that appear to *only* make dash format changes are really pointless - they appear exactly the same to readers in HTML anyway. So the format should be up to editors of the page. It's much easier to tell the difference between an n-dash and an em-dash in the – forms, IMHO, and if it doesn't matter to readers, what's the point of changing it? Clearly the original editor preferred it that way...

It's a very minor issue of course, so nothing too big a deal, just a pet peeve of mine that so many automated scripts consider it an improvement to change the dash format for no reason... SnowFire (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is trivial, but I can only echo your own fears for me back at you! If the dash format doesn't matter, why go on a "crusade" to change it?
To be 100% clear, if you want to use Unicode dashes on pages you edit, more power to you, great, use the format you like. I just don't see the benefit of going to other pages you don't edit and "cleaning them up" to use a different format when it's a convention that only matters for the editors of a page, not the readers of one. My two cents. SnowFire (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You are overreacting. I didn't challenge your revert, did I? You are also quite mistaken, I have edited Revolt of the Communeros previously; as an active member of the Wikipedia Spain project, the subject is of special interest to me. I am on no crusade, I was just doing routine maintenance. Carlstak (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Goya[edit]

As I gave two substantial reasons, please dont ignore them and simply characterise the edits as "arbitrary personal preferences". Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Your desired edit is a substantial change to long standing state of article, you should expect some reaction without any discussion or warning on talk page. Carlstak (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

New Smyrna Beach, Florida[edit]

You are not correct..he is not a designer nor a builder he is a golf course superintendent--Allochek (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Corrected text. It's not clear Chennault even still lives in New Smyrna, your own link says he's from Miami Beach. Carlstak (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
So be it. Although Americans more understandable - superintendent. Lives and here and there, but more in New Smyrna (parents, sister).--Allochek (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

James Dean[edit]

Hi Carlstak. I should be the last guy to comment about an article on a user's talkpage. I find such visits unnecessary and perhaps annoying. But I felt that I should comment here to let you know that you make some very good points with which I agree completely. However I think that some comments regarding the other editors should not be given so much emphasis because they detract from the other excellent points which you are making. This is not meant as criticism but given that I support your points I think the discussion could be helped if we stayed focused on the article issues. Sorry for the trouble. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will temper my comments. Carlstak (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Carlstak for considering my comments. I'll read the replies a bit later at the article talk and try to comment. All the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Curse of James Dean's car[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Curse of James Dean's car has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be original research.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reddogsix (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

These look like great edits you are doing, but it'd be appreciated if you could uncheck the minor edit box unless your edits are genuinely minor. Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you mentioned exactly which edits you think should have been marked minor, as I have no idea which ones you mean. If you look at my contributions, you'll see that I don't mark all my edits as minor, by any means. Surely you realize that sometimes the "minor" designation is subjective. Carlstak (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. Here is an example. --John (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, since I simply edited the lede to conform to WP policy, I didn't consider it a non-minor issue. Carlstak (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. It needn't be a big deal, but in my judgement, that edit fell outside the area recommended. When you don't mark as minor, it's more likely others will review your work, something most editors welcome. --John (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There's no need to make a mountain out of a dunghill. As I said, a cursory check of my contributions history shows that I strive to do just what you say. Now, don't you have better things to do? Carlstak (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
See, this isn't a minor edit either. As I said it needn't be a big deal, but at this stage I am asking you nicely, as an admin, not to mark edits like that as minor, for the reason I gave above. Will you try to go along with that, please? --John (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Adding a source to a page is a non-minor edit? That's news to me. I will not tick the minor edit box in future, but I am surprised; you are the first editor to ever bring this up after thousands of edits I've made. By the way, I've always noted in the summary when I add a source, so that other editors would be alerted. Carlstak (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great. Some editors (though not me) have checked a box that means they don't see edits marked minor in their watchlist. I'd save it for extremely minor typos and formats; use "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute" as your yardstick, and bear in mind that people here are capable of disputing extremely minor changes, as you'll know if you've been here a while. Take care and let me know if I can ever be of any help to you. --John (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Carlstak. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 14:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Carlstak. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 19:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Carlstak. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

July 2014[edit]

1976 Canary Island UFO Article on AFD[edit]

Please join the discussion about the fate of this article.98.174.223.41 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)