User talk:Charles01/Archive 24

Fame and other stuff

Hi Charles01. Please would you read this because I suspect like me you will have a good healthy laugh out loud around page 8. Very best, Eddaido (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing amusing about Wikipedia being cited as an authoritative source, surely.....but thanks. It was interesting. And one implication seems to be that if the plaintiffs had included some distinctive script as part of their claim, they might have won. Or do I need to have read it more carefully? I'm not sure that I agree that Gottlieb Daimler was not a serious historical figure, but then I guess that's partly a question of the skew of your education, and I was schooled closer to Germany and to the origins of the petrol powered motor vehicle than your average New York lawyer (even though my grandmother was, as far as I remember, born on Staten Island). And the way I read it, we got left with the judge's starting prejudices on the significance of Gottlieb Daimler because the plaintiffs I mean applicants didn't bother to make their case in respect of it. And I suppose they would say that they hadn't realised that the judge would think that this was of the proverbial essence. I'm afraid my lasting reaction is that it is sad that apparently reasonably intelligent people are paid presumably obscenely excessive amounts of cash for getting excited, in a manner that I think some lawyers might regard as a little bit slapdash, about this sort of thing. But then that makes me sound like a dangerous lefty which I didn't think I was. Ah well. Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

j. w. scott macfie

I have a book by laurence housman and written in the back is j w scott macfie 1902. I thought you might be interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisb5178 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jw scott macfie

sorry if it looks like im tryint sell something im not very good with computers. it was my grandmothers book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisb5178 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean John William Scott Macfie: it's an unusual combination of names and I agree it may very well be he. Most of what I wrote in the wiki entry comes from Who's Who.

I have replied at greater length by email. But alas I do not think, from what you have told me, that I have any eureka moments for you.

Success

Charles01 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hoffman Auto Showroom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rolls-Royce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages of pictures

I am moving all these pages to your userspace: they clearly don't belong in article space, but I can see that you have taken trouble over writing the captions!TheLongTone (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I thought they were in my user space, but if they weren't it looks from what you write as if they are now....Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I have not ruffled any feathers...I'll CSD the redirects.TheLongTone (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

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.

Glas Isar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sedan and Kombi

DKW F1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roadster

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John William Scott Macfie

Not just any entomologist and he worked in a most important arena. I'll add what I can.Thanks for letting me know and best eshes from Ireland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A more positive reaction than I had any right to expect. Thank you and I shall look forward to seeing what you come up with. Incidentally I just noticed that our man had an entry in French Wikipedia two years before I started one in English which I find pleasing in an indefinable sort of way. The information in that entry seems to come from the same source as "Who's Who". I wonder if someone paid someone else a royalty? Actually I don't think people were so paranoid about copyright issues back then, and even today I am assured you cannot copyright mere facts. In any case, if they both asked JWSM what to write and he sent them both the same answers - which seems more than likely - it's not to be wondered at that they both printed the same info similarly sequenced. A digression too far? Almost certainly. Best wishes not from Ireland but from England, though a recent exchange student visiting from Germany seemed genuinely impressed by the acute greenness of our countryside, so maybe the Dublin government really has found a way to export all that rain to your eastern neighbour. That's certainly how it feels lately, though the cold air seems to be from somewhere further to the north or east Charles01 (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

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.

Adler 2.5-litre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sedan

Adler Standard 6 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sedan

DKW Typ 4=8 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sedan

Glas 1004 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kombi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

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.

Adler Favorit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sedan

Adler Primus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sedan

Adler Standard 8 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sedan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

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.

Adler 2 Liter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sedan

Adler Diplomat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sedan

Adler Trumpf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sedan

Adler Trumpf Junior (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sedan

Audi Type M (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FR

Audi Type R (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FR

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Opel 8/40 PS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roadster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Charles, I see some rather sophisticated use of the reference templates. Lovely work based on dear Oswald, I really ought to get those books some day. Maybe you can use it as a source for Mercedes-Benz 260 D? Mr.choppers | ✎ 07:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Oswald, yes. I've been reading him incompletely and indirectly through other people's entries, and it really is great to have my own copies of at least some of the volumes. Far fewer obvious printing errors in the many tables than in Culshaw & Horrobin which is the nearest thing I've found to an English equivalent on the UK auto-industry. And Oswald combines a powerfully factual narrative with the occasional strong judgement call which, because he so obviously knows his subject intimately, I am tempted often to take at face value. He writes that Kurt Lotz who took over from Nordhof at VW was a man in the wrong job who understood nothing about the car business. Well, we all had wondered, but reassuring to see it simply spelled out like that by a man whose opinion I tend to respect. (I don't know anything about German libel laws, but I do know that Werner Oswald died in 1996.) For the sake of balance, while Lotz seems to have employed a scatter gun approach to figuring out how to replace the Beetle, one or two of the ideas initiated on his watch were picked out by Leiding, skilfully pursued, and led to the revivial aka survival of the business. And in the end they both fell on their swords for reasons that seem to have had more to do with the political nature of VW's ownership and internal power structures than on account of the model development policies over which they presided.

It's a good source for lots of M-B models including some that never yet got their own write-up even in German wiki, but yes, I am hoping to stretch gently back through the 1930s and 1920s on M-B. Already started as you doubtless spotted. There's a fellow called Luc who has done a lot for several of the the old German cars on Italian wiki, and he does good pictures too. He comes with nice insights but I don't always agree with them: the Italian approach doesn't translate so directly into my kind of English as the German approach. That's partly because I never lived in Italy and don't have so much Italian, I guess.

I got two volumes of Oswald by driving to Germany and visiting a book shop which I'd previously found on the web. It's a good shop, but of course that's an old fashioned way to do stuff and I just got a third volume without ever rising from my desk by using

www.abe.com .

I wonder if our grandchildren will even bother with legs.

On referencing I am, of course, completely in the soup. Every so often I look at how someone else has done it ad try to copy what they did. You yourself are one from whom I have attempted to learn. But then I look at how someone else did it and they've done it quite differently. I guess it's good to have a choice. But till now I've totally failed to master the underlying strand of how wiki referencing works. Mostly with computer use it works with osmosis or, in my case, thinking back to he Apple Mac I had in the late 1980s where everything was so gloriously intuitive. But these days Apple are unaffordable and have lost their simplicity and while I've picked up quite a lot about the technical side of how wikipedia works by osmosis, referencing is till now a residual gap. As is reprogramming myself not to leave one space after a comma, two after a colon or semi colon and three after a fullstop aka period. And if ever I do learm they'll probably uninvent the computer and I'll have to dig out a typewriter again....

On with Friday. And hrmph. Best. Charles01 (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

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.

Mercedes-Benz W142 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Streamlined and Roadster

Audi Brussels (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Skoda

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leyland Sherpa ca 1981.JPG

Not sure if this is where I should be commenting, but your File:Leyland Sherpa ca 1981.JPG is not really a very good one to use as an example on Wikipedia as the van has been modified.

The bumper is entirely wrong, may be off a later "Sherpa", but the starting handle hole must have been added. The wheels are modern, the mirrors are almost certainly off a later "Sherpa" , and it looks like high level lights have been added at the back. When I say "Sherpa", I'm referring to the line of derivatives starting with the Freight rover 200 through to the LDV Pilot, most of which had many interchangeable parts. (My '78 Sherpa has the entire front axle, brakes, hubs, etc. from one of the last Pilots). SherpaSam (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my judgement you're broadly right. The obvious reason for inserting a picture in an entry on a car/van is to show a reader what the car or (in this case) van looked like at the time. Criteria include but are not restricted to (1) the quality of the picture as a picture and (2) whether it is the best (or only) representation of the van in question. (A particular bugbear of mine arises when (no doubt in order to comply with obscure regulations) big ugly orange indicators get retrofitted to 40s and 50s cars and vans which originally depended on (endlessly temperamental) semaphore style flippers/trafficators: but that's a digression you don't need here..) (And obviously one has to avoid using pictures that may trigger copyright issues - which tends to rule out pictures previouosly published in Commercial Motor even supposing it was possible to scan a copy of same into a computer with sufficient clarity.)

When I took the picture we had no other pictures on wikipedia of this age and type of van. That's why I took the picture and that's why I uploaded it. If someone has (or you are about to) since upload(ed) to wikipedia a picture that is of broadly comparable quality but which shows are more representative vision of how the Sherpa looked at the time, you should please replace the picture that is there. On the more general "quality of picture" issue it's probably better that I don't comment. Much. Obviously I take pictures the way I like them. Or try to. But whether you, or anyone else, think a given picture is good in terms of clarity, the angles, the way the light does (or doesn't) help get a view of the lines of the vehicle ... other things which are maybe more important to you ... I cannot really second guess your judgements and probably should not wish to.

A few years back there was a real shortage of pictures on wikipedia of some of these older (well, we all get to feel older...) light vans. It's not restricted to light vans, but light vans seems to be your theme at the moment. The shortage is less acute but still there. Another (now) rare BLMC van of which all examples seem to have rusted away before anyone invented the portable camera is the J250. If you do, possibly via an informal club or network of enthusiast owners, have access to other old (and ideally reasonably well preserved) British vans, a camera and a decent position in terms of the daylight, maybe you could also find and upload a more representative picture of a BMC J250. The present one is nice as a shot of an ice cream van on a rainy day in (apparently) a tourist city and gives a good idea of the front of the van, but there's nothing remotely typical or standard about the bits behind where the driver sits.

Thinking on it (as one does) if you are in England and might get a good picture of a Sherpa or anything else, yes you might, even in winter. But the way the weather looks through my window right now maybe you could also revisit the issue again in six months time when the chances of getting the van into a nicely lit position even on our misty island will be ...um... increased. If you actually own a suitable van .... well, go for it. We'll all be winners. Try (ideally) to get a background that is neither too distracting nor too depressing. Try and angle the van so the sun is relatively high (and, obviously, more behind where you stand to take the picture than in front, and whether or not behind clouds) to avoid funny reflections that you only notice when you get home and look again at the picture(s). I like green backgrounds which argues for a local sports ground or the entrance to a field along a country road. Or do you have access to a stately home with a country park? No, probably not in December. Anyhow, you don't need to share my taste. A disused town gas works could also be an interesting background. (There's nothing wrong with your own front drive, but probably you should avoid that since you - or your nearest and dearest or remoter kinsfolk - may get to feel indefinably uneasy about having your own home pictured in wikipedia, even on a less than frequently consulted page. Hard to explain why, but ...)

Happy Weekend Charles01 (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

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.

Mercedes-Benz 380 (1933) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to I8 and Roadster

Mercedes-Benz W08 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to I8 and Roadster

Benz 10/30 PS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to I4

Mercedes-Benz W18 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to I8

Mercedes 15/70/100 PS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to I6

Mercedes 24/100/140 PS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to I6

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1940 Buick Identification

The most obvious difference between a 1940 Buick Special and a 1940 Buick Super are running boards. The Super never had them and the Special didn't lose them until 1941. Thus the 1940 Buick in question is clearly a Super (given that it has hood moldings consistent with the smaller straight-8). Specials and Centurys were built on GM's B-body and Supers and Roadmasters were built on GM's C-body. In 1940 the GM C-body received cutting-edge "torpedo" styling that featured shoulder and hip room that was over 5" wider, the elimination of running boards and exterior styling that was streamlined and 2-3" lower. The GM B-Body didn't get the new look until the following year.

I'm sorry that I didn't notice your question until now.

Sadowski (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Sadowski. I do need to try and discipline myself to do more patient research before uploading car pictures of cars about which I know so little, as here. But I'm still learning. (Not sure about the self-discipline bit, though.) Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IF you are also good on Packards, and have appropriate time and inclination, would you mind taking a look at the 1947 Clipper of which I linked a picture to the Packard Clipper entry. I'm as sure as I can be that it's a Packard Clipper (yes, I know. That way nemesis beckons...) but I was never quite sure about the 1947 bit. BUT if the day job calls, please don't interrupt it on my account. Either way, thanks for thinking about it. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It used to upset me when people misidentified uploaded images. But my philosophy now is that at least the images are in the commons. I've become quite adept at locating misidentified automobile images and I am just grateful for their existence. However I'm still occasionally irritated when people replace good images in pages with their own misidentified uploaded images (I'm thinking of one self-promoting editor in particular).

The Packard is challenging, as the 1946s and 1947s are virtually identical. However this appears to be a 1947 Packard Super Clipper. The easiest way to tell that it is a Super is simply the Super script on the hood just forward of the door jamb. And fortunately, for identification's sake, it has a two tone paint scheme. In 1946 the top color was applied to the window frames and the trunk. In 1947 the top color was applied only to the roof as we see here. Sadowski (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've been nurturing unease somewhere obscure at the back of my mind about that Packard's year for months.

As to misidentified images, yes it's tiresome when other people do it, but if course when I do it myself it's merely honest error. Once or twice I have raised suspected misidentification of other folks' uploaded pictures on their talk pages, but generally .... not worth the time and effort. As for good images being replaced by worse images, of course I agree. Interesting issues arise where you have a MUCH better image of an unusual bodied car or an adequate but only just image of a more standard bodied car the way we remember them (but maybe cleaner) on the streets when we were kids. Anyhow, I upload too many pictures of cars myself to Commons to be keen to become involved in too many of p***ing contests over the relative merits of one or other picture being linked to a particular article. I'll happily link one of "my" pictures where there seems to be a gap - no picture at all of the car/body type in question - or where I'm "replacing" one of "my" own pictures with one which I judge to be for some reason "better". Otherwise better to let others make the appropriate judgements. On one (or two) self promoting editors in particular, we're probably thinking of the same chap(s) but I think I'll leave it at that.

Happy Days and, the family tell me, Christmas. And >2012. Charles01 (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you

	Barnstar of good taste
	Your many contributions deserve a delectable Dobos torte. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, new Packards for everyone! Eddaido (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too kind. Thank you. I'm not sure that delicious looking cake is on the list of things I'm allowed to eat, but my virtual pleasure is undiminished, and a pleasing chance to reminisce on Budapest. My son just came to tell me the bleeper on the cooker is bleeping and Mom upstairs is not responding to his yells, so I guess I need to go and guestimate what there is on the cooker that needs to be turned up or (more likely) down. Happy Christmas and >2012. Charles01 (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz W142

Hello Charles01. Thanks for creating the new Mercedes-Benz W142 article. I nominated the article to be published on the Did you know section of Wikipedia's main page, but was informed that all paragraphs need to be sourced in the article (except for the lead) to qualify for DYK (see Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines). Another matter at the DYK nomination was that the article is reliant upon a single source. So, if you're interested in the prospect of this being listed at DYK, feel free to add more sources to the article so that all paragraphs have at least one source, and add more sources if they're available. From this point, it can be renominated. The nomination for DYK is located here: Template:Did you know nominations/Mercedes-Benz W142. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for liking it, and indeed for improving the entry as you did.

I'm afraid I'm not really up to speed with DYKs and other wikinominations. Sorry of that makes me sound like some kind of a republican (British English: not American English....Never too keen on dodgy politicians schmoozing other dodgy politicians and journalists with the promises of lordships either...). If a wiki entry communicates information that is interesting and/or useful and as far as possible objectively true, that's good. If not ... not.

The sourcing issue is of course important. I have one book with good information on this car. It's a good book and I believe the information is of good quality. And of course there's German wikipedia which I used as a source. Actually I think he most likely used the same book, but without the same level of "in-line" citations to demonstrate the fact. However, the chap who wrote "my" book also wrote another book dedicated to Mercedes-Benz cars only. Good. But of course he will have recycled his research for Book A when compiling Book B and / or vice versa. How many sources was that? There are also no doubt half a dozen web based sources that could be adduced. Except that many of them will be copied ... or, which is worse, mis-copied ... from the same book. (And when you come back in three years time half the web based sources will have disappeared or died.) Where you have an entry on World democracy there are no doubt hundreds of sources all differently sourced and researched, but when you are looking at a single car from seventy or eighty years ago, ten sources are often actually just one or two sources, going round and round in circles quoting (or misquoting) one another, and risking giving false information driven by some simple transcription error that provided false information the sacred status of something seemingly corroborated from five or ten different directions. So, if you (or anyone reading this) are willing and able to add sources to the entry, and especially of they are reliable and as far as you can tell independent of one another that's great. Strength in diversity. But the objective has to be to improve the quality of the information. Ticking boxes on a check list compiled by folks most of whom who never read the entry ... well, that's nice too, of course. But important more as a means than as an end in itself. Or?

I write too much. Thinking at Christmas is maybe a dangerous thing. Happy day and >2012 Charles01 (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mercedes-Benz W02, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I6 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]