User talk:Carlotm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Project editor retention logo 1.svgelcome to Wikipedia Carlotm, from WP:WER
Thank you for registering! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles users have established and adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. REMEMBER - each policy and/or guideline page has a discussion you can join to ask questions, add input and contribute your voice towards any current policy or guideline change underway! Join the discussion by going to the talkpage of the article. Please take a minute to view a number of quick start pages for an overview of how to work within these guidelines and more information to help you better understand the practices and procedures editors are using. These include: The Newcomers Manual and User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia.

Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance!

Policies, guidelines and peer assistance Help and Tutorials
Crystal Clear app lassist.png
The five pillars of Wikipedia.
The fundamental principles of the project.
Crystal Clear app Startup Wizard.png
Step-by-step guide on how to edit.
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png
Main policies of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.
Crystal Clear action edit.png
How to start a page.
If you want to create a new article
Crystal Clear action apply.png
Style Guide.
The complete guide to how articles should look
The complete help guide
Newspaper Cover Copyright.svg
Addressing copyright concerns
Curly Brackets.svg
Quick reference.
A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
Nuvola apps kteatime.png
Help Desk.
Here you can ask other editors for assistance
Crystal Clear app kedit.png
Your user pages and your sandbox.
Editing in your own "personal" space
Presa de decissions.png
Adoption program.
Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing.
Nuvola apps ksirc.png
Frequently asked questions.
Some common questions and their answers.

This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or another editor's talkpage. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.

Again, welcome! ```Buster Seven Talk 07:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Tank you for the welcome, Buster Seven. Just trying to do minor edits to resolve small errors. I'll take treasure of all your suggestions. Carlotm (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Romanesque secular and domestic architecture[edit]

Thank you for putting the pics into galleries.

The galleries work well if the pictures have been chosen to be the same size and shape, as in the two articles on Renaissance architecture. However, I want to draw your attention to a problem when using this format. In most articles about paintings, this is not the case, and the changes to packed galleries doesn't work effectively.

Also, I notice you changed all the section headings and gave them capital letters. This is against the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which is the reason that they were all in sentence case. Would you mind changing them all back please?

Amandajm (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Romanesque articles.
There are now three of them. I rewrote the main article entirely, and wrote the other two from scratch.
Galleries. I am still trying to get the hang of how to use that format. I think I've got it now.
The reason why I reverted was that I prefer borders on the pictures. But then I realised that the packed galleries have other advantages. They are better if you want to print the article in book form.

The reason why the packed galleries generally don't work for paintings is that paintings that you may want to use near each other come in very different shapes. And paintings are usually spaced out on walls, with frames around them. They are intended to be seen like that, and went they are placed in very close proximity, it destroys the composition of the paintings, which is a vital element.

As for the mysteries of the MOS, don't ask me! I am not going to argue with people about something like Title Case. Even the titles of articles are in sentence case.... I don't know why.
I am currently fiddly with List of regional characteristics of Romanesque churches. You might want to take a look in an hour or so.
Happy editing!
Amandajm (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Glossary of North American railway terms[edit]

Hi Carlotm. I would like to introduce you to a bit of Wikipedia policy; MOS:CAPTION mandates that all image captions in sentence-fragment form shall omit sentence-ending punctuation, like periods. Accordingly, I have partially reverted this aspect of your change at Glossary of North American railway terms.

Also, the images in that glossary are small because the associated definitions are small. This helps to make space for future images on the definitions that currently lack them. It also keeps images close to their associated definitions. The same image format can be seen on Glossary of Australian railway terms, Glossary of New Zealand railway terms, Glossary of rail transport terms, and Glossary of United Kingdom railway terms. Please keep in mind that these are glossaries and not articles, so the image formatting differs a little.

Lastly, the existing format on these glossary articles is to wiki link the defined term, if an associated article exists. This is because these definitions are not a substitute for in-depth articles, and the glossaries act as navigation pages, of sorts. Please don't remove those wiki links (as you did for Green Goat). Thanks, and happy editing! – voidxor (talk | contrib) 17:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:INTDABLINK violation[edit]

Please do not make direct links to disambiguation pages, as you did here and here with the links in the "See also" section. These are required to direct through the "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect; doing otherwise causes tremendous disruption to the work of disambiguators. If you have disrupted any other links in this way, please fix them right away. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Zavidovići municipality[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Zavidovići municipality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for your comment on the Wehrmachtbericht discussion that I started—I had a good laugh! On a more serious note, I agree that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of primary sourced material. Publishing contemporaneous documents for the reader to parse and interpret is inviting them to do OR, which is not a purpose of an encyclopedia. That's what the archives are for. In any case, thank you again and happy editing! K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, thanks for your words. Carlotm (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz[edit]

Hi, a community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, a World War II biography—an area in which you edited. The reassessment page can be found here. Interested editors are encouraged to take part and comment on whether they believe the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ping me[edit]

Say, at times I don't look at my watchlist or even log on to WP for several days at a stretch. If you comment on Heinz Auerswald and I don't respond, please email me. Thanks – S. Rich (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


In re this edit in Otto Wöhler, do you happen to have a source? I've posted in Talk:Wehrmachtbericht—Military commendation?, but did not get any comments. If there's a source that provides some commentary on the status of these mentions, that would be very helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I must thank you for having excited my interest, and exposed my fallacy. Look here. Cheers. Carlotm (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Refs in medical articles[edit]

Please do not change refs like this [1]. That formatting does not work in other languages and therefore hiders translation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, surely I will comply with your request, although, if template {{r}} is a real issue, a warning should be put somewhere on an higher level. Carlotm (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Selk'nam people[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Selknam people a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Selk'nam people. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. —0xF8E8 (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Carlotm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Carlotm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

St. Martin[edit]

I would like to understand this. What I see is a change from readable to not readable. It's a GA, checked quality. I'd normally just revert but perhaps you can explain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Similarly here: why would you pipe to something English when our article is in German? Why capitalize "congregation", which is no name? - Do me a favour: don't make so many changes in one edit, - I'd like to keep what's good and not summarily revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: The page had many {{cite...}} errors and broken links in References. By correcting these errors and links I made also some changes which do not affect the outcome but are useful for saving bytes. If inadvertently I did some mistakes, please let me know, and I will correct them. I suggest not to revert the page to the preceding error full condition.
The reason of my minimal ce lay in trying to reduce an awkward construction like "for it so serve as" or a too extreme assertion like "The paintings form part of the architecture". I tried also to reduce German wordings, which are difficult to understand and properly pronounce by an English speaking readership. But I may be wrong. As per the "picture gallery" I removed, the reason is that there is no picture gallery in the linked webpage but only two pictures. Carlotm (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. The phrasing changes are fine. Let's break things up a bit, and - as said aboe - please do the same when editing: one edit for changing references, another for phrasing, another for German terms. Clarity is an objective that - for me - is of higher value than "saving bytes". Please explain what cite error means for you?
Now let's look at the first diff:
  • I see no reason to change reference format, and it should be consistent in the article.
  • I see no reason to change labels of refs. They are purely internal.
  • I see no reason to change from a readable ref style with one line per item to all continuously, thinking of the future editor. The byte "new line" doesn't take more storage than a space.
Now the second, with the same questions and additionally:
  • Why would you pipe to something English when our article is in German?
  • Why capitalize "congregation", which is no name?
  • Why remove the sentence about the pictures forming part of the architecture which was requested in the GA review?
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Sorry, my sense of clarity may differ from yours. I am also sad that you don't appreciate my "saving bytes", which I consider a very high objective. But, you know, we all are equal and in the same time different. If you open St. Martin, Idstein's penultimate revision, and go down to "References" you'll see seven errors, quite visible being in red (one in Unionskirche, Idstein). Plus dead links, of which there may be some mnore; I didn't a through and through check.

  • Reference format
The format didn't change: I maintained named references. I just shifted from Wiki murkup mode to template mode. Is there a difference between, say, <references /> and {{reflist}}? They are just two different way of expressing the same format. <ref name=monument /> is equivalent to {{r|monument}}; advantages stay on the latter, being shorter, but you don't care, regretfully, and being rendered in a different color (in editing mode), which is a big help.
  • Labels of refs
I followed the tradition of "author name+year" or "newspaper+date" or, similarly, adding a number or a code to a "normal" word so that when doing a search I avoid getting false positives, eg {{r|bachtage2000}} .
  • Readable ref style
What you call "readable ref style" I consider a lack of compactness. My two lines of compacted ref are even more readable,and save some 45 bytes on average. No need to worry about future editors. These two pages are quite mature and I don't see an horde of scribblers descending unto them.
  • Piping from German to English
There are many pages with a non-English title. But that does not mean we have to follow suit. I try to observe the basic rule I read somewhere in one of the MOS pages: whenever a word cannot be found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary that word is not in the current vocabulary of an average English speaking person. Ergo I try an English translation and when the operation is not satisfactory I may add the italicized foreign text under bracket.
  • Capitalized "congregation"
Capitalization was already there. I left things as they were. But you are right.
  • Pictures forming part of the architecture
Architecture is about creating spaces and paintings do not form part of architecture, maybe frescoes do, for compelling reasons. But I quite understand what was meant with it. I suggest something less direct, ie, "The series of 38 paintings by the Flemish painter Michael Angelo Immenraedt, an exponent of Flemish Baroque painting, are a most prominent decoration and embellishment of the simple architectural shape of the nave." Or any other wording of your choice. You may even restore the old sentence. Mine is just one point of view. Carlotm (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we please look more at facts and less at feelings? We also have misunderstandings. [2] this is the version before yours, it shows nothing in red for me. If it does for you, please tell me what, - possibly you have sharper tools.
  • I don't mind changing to template r (although I think it should be consistent within an article). I mind the long line with all parameters as a string. It's not clear in edit mode. - Repeating: the byte for a new line is just one byte, same as for a space. I never said saving bytes is no good objective.
  • Labels of refs. You have your convention, I have mine: if an author is there, take author's last name, otherwise if url is there, take that name, otherwise take something recognizable from the title. An abbreviation doesn't tell me (or a future editor) what it's about. - Usually refs stay as the principal began. - To talk about feelings, once: I hate CamelCase.
  • Readable ref style. I come from Kafka, featured article, teaching me to have readable refs (even it's only for one future editor. Why use a word such as horde at all. I am German, so we may have language difficulties on top of different views).
  • Piping from German to English. When an article title is German, that tells me it's the common name or the best name, Some translations to English are horribly wrong, such as "Evangelisch" to "evangelical". (Compare the discussions in the archives of the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland.) - When an article is German, I use German. We can add a translation in brackets, but I think that's a waste of bytes for a linked term because the linked article should have a translation.
  • Pictures forming part of the architecture. A picture hanging on the wall is not architecture, but here they are covering the ceiling and upper parts of walls completely. - It was not my idea, - compare the GA review.
I don't need pings once I am in a discussion, but there's also real life. St. Cecilia's day today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
My dear music lover, It may be that my setting is different than yours. Errors are still there though: look at the following footnotes:
(St. Martin, Idstein)
(19) (Red message) "Missing or empty |url= (help); |access-date= requires |url= (help)"
(21), (22), (23), (24), (25), (26) "|access-date= requires |url= (help)"
(Unionskirche, Idstein)
(11) "|access-date= requires |url= (help)""
  • Related settings:
    • My Custom CSS (Preferences --> Appearance) has this line added: ".citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */"
    • In Preferences --> Gadgets, "Syntax highlighter" checkbox is ON
  • Refs. I cannot argue with your perceptions. But you have to believe me when I wrote that the gain is about 45 bytes per changed ref. I tested it, and the savings I made, 1622 and 383 bytes respectively, come also from the multi-param-in-one-line style of ref.
  • Refs' labels. Again, I cannot argue with your convictions, but please consider this excerpt "A common practice is to use the author-year or publisher-year for the reference name." (Help:Footnotes), which suggests, I infer, that a "common" name is not enough. Take for example the label "Mozart" or "Idstein"; they are not unique, and you'll find more instances along the text, thus complicating the life of those scribblers, like myself, who use the search tool to find labels. Furthermore labels in the preceding revision were not all that clear: "Honsack 2009" uses a year which is not even present in ref's body; "Bernardi" is not the author, is not in the title nor in the publisher (who is he?); the author Heeren-Pradt is referenced twice, for two news, in 2006 and 2015, but instead of labeling both with author name+year, one label has the plain author name and the other is loosely taken from the title ("50 years"??). Nevertheless I changed labels only where I was already entangled for other reasons (errors, links). Likewise I didn't change all the one-param-per-line style into a multi-param-per-line style. I hope always that other editors will follow suit. And, yes, the CamelCase may be not lovable, but certainly useful.
  • Readable ref style. We may have a language gap, but on top of it you may also forgive my ironic approach. By the way in Kafka there is an occurrence of the deprecated cite param "authors" ("Further reading" --> Corngold, Stanley – Wagner, Benno (2011). Franz Kafka: The Ghosts in ..... ).
  • Piping from German to English. I will not defend here my position. Please, reshuffle things as you please, but remember that you are writing for an English speaking audience, and, when you encounter an incorrect translation, please find a better one.
  • Pictures. Should we abide by GA demands? If so, please act consequently. You will excuse myself for not giving much weight to GA and FA tags. I saw too many pages, the tag of which should be removed.
So, going into practical, tell me if I can do something meaningful here. I ask you for suggestions because I feel you are more committed to these pages than I am. Carlotm (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I will consider next week. If you see a GA or FA tag you think is wrong, there are procedures. I am committed to the pages, see talk. The referencing of St. Martin was easy, to many linked newspaper entries and one website with most of the performances. The newspapers changed there formats, all links broken, and the website was found self-published, so no reliable source. I had to go over the paper clippings and confess didn't put much energy in consistency of ref names. Nor do I have much time for it right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page RHSA (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

  • Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
  • Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
  • Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
    • Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
  • Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
  • Do not insert external links or references

Thank you. Widefox; talk 09:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Widefox: I am unable to understand the sense of your reversion and more so your prolific and non pertinent message here. I presume this inability comes from my supreme stupidity. As such I am unable also to find the right words for convincing you that you are on the wrong by misinterpreting DAB rules. 10:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Did you check the link in my edit summary (which also repeats the link I used in creating the dab)? Further, can you explain this edit [3] ? If you are contesting the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then that's one thing, but you haven't mentioned that, so these edits come across as disruption unless explained?! I see above that this isn't the first time you've got feedback about incorrect disambiguation edits, so you should familiarise yourself with WP:MOSDAB and WP:D before continuing this disruption. Widefox; talk 11:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Edits like [4] and others are not minor, and should never have the minor flag checked Widefox; talk 11:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Many of your edits are contested, and you're overusing the minor flag. Now would be a time to stop this disruptive pattern of edits to dab pages/hatnotes, not make contested reference reformatting, and follow guidelines and read links clearly given. Widefox; talk 11:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Widefox: My edit at [5] was quit self evident and anyway explained in the edit summary (RSHA and RHSA are not the same thing). I never made nonconstructive nor, apparently or really, disruptive edits. I was just trying to patch up what you were messing around by creating a confusing dab page and adding a misplaced hatnote on top of RSHA page, instead of correcting the erroneous redirection page made by a third party. And, please, stop going fishing: it is embarrassing for you and harassing for me. Carlotm (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh User:Wbm1058 pointed out the two letters were transposed [6] !! Thanks Wbm1058. Sorry, my mistake! I agree with your edit now. Deleted above message. Why didn't you just say, no it wasn't self evident from your comment "~position" [7] (or later "-redirect|RHSA (not applicable)" [8]). No you didn't explain in your edit summary, and unfortunately I incorrectly assumed you were just removing the primary topic formatting which I regularly fix as it's a common mistake. A mistake on my behalf is hardly "messing around" is it? It's still a valid dab page and the three of us have improved this. My comment above about edit summaries is still valid, and if you had made a clear edit summary (no you did not explain the transposed characters despite claiming you did) I'd have understood my error. Before accusing others of WP:HARASSMENT again, see WP:DWH "Any civil and appropriate.." so I dismiss the claim per WP:AOHA "clear the accusations are not well-founded". Instead, you could just choose to not mark edits minor and provide edit summaries (as we all have to) per guideline.
Wait a minute, both redirects (RHSA, RSHA) did target the article, which is the source of this error and the incorrect acro is still being used by another article Legal purge in Norway after World War II ! (fixed [9]). Widefox; talk 11:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Widefox: Surely you already know that 94% of all my edits (100% of Article edits) have an "edit summary", albeit concise. Therefore I am all the more amazed, and annoyed, that you raise your vocie (WP:SHOUT) to tell me to provide edit summaries, and, also, to not mark edits minor. As per my minor edit at [10], to cite only one, among all the books having in their title the term "Jewish Question", one very minor book the author of which is reputed an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, an Holocaust denier, the refounder of NAAWP and a voluntary apartheid supporter, and the content of which is borderline and questionable, "forgetting" completely the many books by leading scholars, surely isn't a commendable act: its mending was certainly dutiful and indisputable, and as such, minor. However I will accept your advice and be less minor-prone in future, if only you too are willing to accept an advice from me: focus your attention on what you are doing, give more credit to other editors' edits, and try to understand the sense of what they are doing, before reverting, meddling with editors' history, filling their talk pages with non pertinent messages and commands of a presumptuous savour. These behaviours of yours may induce helpful editors to abandon WP. Carlotm (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you lost me with the claim of an edit summary that never was. I do think we can agree on MINOR, but your example highlights how far the edit is from minor - per MINOR, even removing a single "not" isn't minor, the closest criterion being "Removing obvious vandalism" (which it is not), in fact it's explicitly not a minor edit "Adding or removing references or external links in an article" and "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text".
[11] "More apropos" really misrepresents the edit which is a WP:CUTPASTE move (not normally allowed per se, but possibly OK in this case of dab pages, but still should have attribution) but certainly not/never minor. Completely agree that your edits do appear to have summaries. Maybe I didn't even see them as they're so small? Don't know, so I retract that sorry. But, these long-term compounding editing issues really aren't something to entertain any sort of bargain with me, have no connection with editor retention, or bogus harassment claims. Widefox; talk 21:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


Ever considerd adding this tag to your userpage {{WikiGnome topicon}} ? See example at your userpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks for your suggestion and your upd on my page; though I'll revert it, the reason being that I like my empty page, and dislike (sort of) categorisations. However feel free to add whatever you deem convenient: I enjoy things coming and going. So I'll replace your upd with the image (and caption) of Aaron Swartz from your page; if you don't mind. And I'll keep there for a while. Carlotm (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Nazism sidebar[edit]

Because of a multiplicity of new options, I've withdrawn the RfC you participated in and replaced it with this one Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Navbox orphans[edit]

I edited the article (diff) to change "Navbox|child" to "Navbox|border=none" because the former is technically incorrect unless the Navbox is contained within a parent Navbox (Template talk:Navbox is full of the background if of interest). What was the problem with that edit which made you want to restore "Navbox|child" (diff)? Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq, for your notice. My main goal was to center the subtitle "Foreign forced labourers". Then I sighted "Navbox|border=none", which Navbox documentation says to be equivalent to "Navbox|border=child" and to "Navbox|child". So I choose simply the shorter and more appropriate (IMO) wording. Now you say my choice is "incorrect unless the Navbox is contained within a parent Navbox". But this is exactly the case in question, or being the secondary navbox inside the "caption" param makes things not properly set? Most likely I miss here something, and I need more information to understand this issue exactly. Carlotm (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Before I get lost in explanations, I believe the recommended way to center is as follows:
|above='''Foreign forced labourers'''
Good point about the documentation—I'm afraid it has not been updated to reflect the large changes to Module:Navbox which I completed a month ago. That was in response to a request at Template talk:Navbox. The problem was that the navbox defaults to striping alternate rows in a different background color—white and light gray. The old navbox failed to do that in some circumstances. My changes make child navboxes output special codes which the surrounding parent navbox replaces to achieve the desired result. Because the child navboxes output special codes, Category:Navbox orphans is used to track cases where no parent navbox is used. That is a hidden category so it is only seen if enabled in Special:Preferences.
There are a number of ways to see the difference between child (which is equivalent to border=child) and border=none. One is the tracking category. Another is the striping, although the effect is subtle and can be hard to see on some screens. A key point is looking at the HTML source which includes "_ODDEVEN_" markers when a child navbox has no parent. The version at 09:00, 15 April 2017 has no tracking category or _ODDEVEN_, but it does stripe alternate rows. By contrast, the version at 09:20, 15 April 2017 displays the tracking category and has _ODDEVEN_ in the HTML source, and does not stripe alternate rows. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanations. Carlotm (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed Trygve Gulbranssen from the Nazi list[edit]

Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please Xx236, be a bit more explicit. Carlotm (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi. There is absolutely no requirement that articles use citation templates, as long as he citations are uniform in some other way. I dont object to you formatting the citation to your preference (though I find citation templates rather ough on the eyes and cumbersome when editing the text, I will use them in articles that already use them, as a courtesy); however, if youre adding your own format, if this your contribution to the article, please consider formatting all citations. Picking a random group and leaving them like that is not an improvement, no matter how you feel about the superiority of templates; it also sends the message that you expect other editors to finish the job for you. Dahn (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Dahn, I didn't change the citation style, which was a mix of short and long citations (with and without templates), and still is. I simply added links connecting short to their long citations, which is a boon, and a must I would add, in a web-based encyclopedia like Wikipedia. To do that I necessarily use templates, which, inter alia, facilitate my job, given the color code of my edit page. It seems you didn't notice that I was doing just what you requested; in fact, starting from the top I was adding links, so to make all short citations looking the same. However I cannot be as fast as you seem to pretend. BTW the message that I "expect other editors to finish the job", is absolutely not a bad message in this collaborative enterprise.
Now I feel like a dog on a very short leash; so my lord and master, tell me what have I to do: to revert you for the second time and continue my efforts, or to abandon definitely Pittoni's page, being so unwelcomed? Carlotm (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes you did, you added citation templates, which change the format used for the reference, and you only did this for a random number of citations; the connections had that effect, and created a discrepancy with the other citations. Plus, you didn't even do that for all short citations. This means that you simply selected a number of citations to add your improvements, and then got bored -- let someone else do the rest. As long as you created an inconsistency, it was not an improvement. If you feel that it must be done (which I dont), please do it consistently -- take all the time you need, sandbox it if it helps, but when you decide to copyedit, edit it through. Or leave it as it was. Otherwise, it means "I expect someone else to do the rest for me" -- when all the editors before you were comfortable with the old format. Dahn (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)