User talk:Carlstak

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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, no problem. Done. Obrigado, Carlstak (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:Flag of the Ainu people.png

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

¿dónde necesitas las referencias? ¿Qué es lo que no comprendes?. Habla claro.--Santos30 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The information you're introducing is unsourced. Please provide references. Carlstak (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For work on the Marbella article. keep up the good work. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Work still in progress.:-) Carlstak (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Thank you very much. Carlstak (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I thank you sincerely for your editing and your comments on the discussion. Best regards.--LTblb (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to the situation. Carlstak (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I will temper my comments. Carlstak (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Certainly. Here is an example. --John (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

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

Hello: it's a violation of our WP:AGF policy to accuse me of being a "POV warrior." [3] The information you added to the Independent Institute article is in clear violation of a number of Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Please keep your edit summaries civil. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing uncivil about my edit summary. I did not add the material you objected to and reverted initially . I merely added sources to it. After your revert with its accusatory summary, I restored some of the content and reworded part of it. Please spare us the lawyering. Carlstak (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." My edit summaries stated "Greenpeace is not WP:RS" [4] and "The language here is incredibly biased and violates WP:BLP, it's also a huge WP:COATRACK." [5] Both of those edit summaries are clearly about content, and not about contributors. Your edit summary stated "Partial revert of whitewash edit and removal of sourced content by POV warrior." [6] That's a pretty clear violation of WP:NPA. Please don't do it again. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone. I didn't revert your revert. You have a zest for this sort of thing. Keep it on the article talk page. Carlstak (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your numerous edits on Mauricio González-Gordon y Díez. I have had the article nominated for GA since May and I hope it will succeed. Since it is now one of the five oldest unreviewed GA nominations I suppose someone will take it up soon. Crispulop (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice. I will pay special attention to the article when time allows; it would be very nice to see it become a GA. Fingers crossed. Carlstak (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been promoted to GA. Thank you for your contributions. Crispulop (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Congratulations. Carlstak (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carlstak. My English is not very good, but I fear that your recent edit in the article Hephaestion does not flow completely well: maybe there is one 'that' too many ("and that this concept was ..."). I wonder whether you could take a look at it again. Thank you. Cheers.--Jeanambr (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your suggestion, and have amended the text to flow better, I think. Admittedly, the sentence was unwieldy, but the previous version made no sense in English. I hope this new version satisfies your concerns. Carlstak (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Jeanambr (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to my grandfather, George J F Clarke's entry. It is very difficult to find information on him without going to St. Augustine or Fernandina (or Cuba) and your updates over the past year have made my life so much easier. Pynomrah (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the beer, my favorite beverage. I am very pleased that a descendant of the distinguished George J. F. Clarke has found the article useful. I think he is one of the heroes of Florida history, and have long had a special interest in the story of the Clarke family in Florida, as I lived for many years at the site of their plantation on the Matanzas River. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should put our heads together about the John Horse article. It seems like you've got a lot of information and your edits have all been really helpful. Thanks. Swmirsky (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer, Swmirsky, I will be happy to collaborate, not sure how you want to go about it. I have good researching skills, and a lot of experience finding sources for Wikipedia. I've already ordered some books on this subject, and when I receive them may add some material to the article. In the meantime, I'll continue fact-checking your welcome additions and adding sources. If you have any ideas to propose, please let me know. Carlstak (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been doing great work, you just need to watch out for self-published books. Thanks for your thanks! Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. For some reason, the subject, John Horse, attracts a lot of self-published or vanity press authors. I've run across quite a few of them, but this one got away from me. Carlstak (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Coat of arms, or shield of San Salvador.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carlstak,

I just wanted to say I am happy we can work together in a helpful and friendly manner. It's been a while since I've been on wikipedia and my previous time here was occasionally tainted with user-conflict, but now that I've returned I would like a new air of cooperation and good spirit. I look forward to working with you and to the articles we will make better.

Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly, Cristiano.

Best,

Carlstak (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have received an email a couple of weeks ago regarding MIT Press Journals - could you please either fill out the linked form or let me know if you didn't get the email? We'd like to get these processed soon. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like you to take a look at the ongoing debate on the origin of the word Canada in the article Canada. Your unbiased opinion would be appreciated.J Pratas 18:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, though it's better written (how rare!) I have some concern about factual accuracy since bda is used to shape history according to his own POV. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at his prior history, Vituzzu, but this edit seems sound, and I don't detect any NPOV problem. Do you see any particular issues to be addressed there? I will fact-check it and add appropriate sources. Carlstak (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply have to assume bad faith dealing with all of his edits, if you'll deeply check them it will work for me ;)

--Vituzzu (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlstak, I want to thank you that you've been improving many of the articles I posted, improving the references and correcting the spelling of the articles to make them more understandable. As you collaborated in many of the articles I posted, in the verification of sources (and orthographic), I would like to ask your help to check references of the article about Francisco del Moral y Sánchez, governor of Florida, that I posted long ago, but I included more inform in last weeks, because I'm not entirely sure if I understand some of the things explained by some of these sources, if it is possible to you. Thank you.--Isinbill (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Isinbill, it will be my pleasure to assist as soon as I get a chance. I have already been doing some work in a text editor on your Gonzalo Méndez de Canço article, but I will be happy to put that on hold to work on Francisco del Moral y Sánchez. I just need to finish editing and finding sources for a few paragraphs of the Salé article that Vituzzu is referring to above. Carlstak (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you then for your help!--Isinbill (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would not want to abuse your help, but I also need improvement the articles of Juan de Salinas and Luis de Rojas y Borja, both in the orthography and in the information. I only included the information I found, but I think it would useful if someone could find more information (al least to the article of Juan de Salinas). You was the one who most improved my articles, and so, if it is not uncomfortable for you, I also would like to have your help for these items. Thank you!--Isinbill (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isinbill:, I will be glad to lend a hand, and will work on them when I get a chance. Carlstak (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Carlstak.--Isinbill (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Enough is enough" should not be on the discussion page of the article of Juan Leal, but on my talk page, because it speaks of my articles as a whole, not only the article of Juan Leal. I moved the commentary to my talk page (although still there a copy in the talk page of Juan Leal) and my answer I left it on that page.--Isinbill (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn't deleted your commentary in the Talk Page of Juan Leal's article, I also answered there. --Isinbill (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all your loved ones, and a joyous and prosperous 2016. All the very best from your friends: Cliftonian, Mrs Cliftonian and the two little Cliftonians. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you very much, and the same to you and yours, Cliftonian.

Best wishes,

Carlstak (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What material do you believe I removed? – Smyth\^talk 18:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My mistake. I have reverted my revert. Apologies. Carlstak (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. – Smyth\^talk 21:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't cause disruption and edit aggressively at the Billy the Kid article. I have been working to bring this article to GA status for over a week. Edit warring and other disruption there could put a serious halt to it being considered for and passing GA. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: I am not edit-warring or being disruptive, these are bold edits, but not aggressively made ones. WikiDan61 agreed with my edits, and reverted yours. I don't think I've reverted any of yours since, and I actually agree with most of the subsequent changes you made, but I wouldn't quibble about the ones I don't agree with. I am making edits from a sincere desire to improve the article. You have accused me of "poor editing and word choices", but you reverted corrections I made that any conscientious copy editor would have made, including corrections of obvious grammatical errors, i.e., not capitalizing "Supreme Court", leaving the second "s" out of "in various ways", "Unknown to the Bonney", "found guilty for the murder", "-nickname, Brushy Bill -", "to consider Bonney's death can be officially certified" and writing "in February 8, 1981" instead of "On February 8, 1981". I also caught the "Before 1877, McCarty had his horse stolen" error, where the the source referred to clearly says "in 1877". In fact, I would characterize these and other errors then in the article as "poor editing and word choices". It is not as if I am some rogue editor looking for a fight. If you look at the talk page as well as the history of the Gregor MacGregor article, which is a featured article, you will see that my edits and suggestions to improve the article were welcomed. Carlstak (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas, compañero.

Te solicito que votes en la discusión de los artículos de Basque Country (autonomous community) y Valencian Community para elegir el mapa localizador de ambas comunidades autónomas, apoyando el tipo standar para todas las regiones del país. Algunos usuarios nacionalistas o abiertamente independentistas quieren añadir un mapa sesgado en el que no aparece todo el país (en el caso de Euskadi) o que aparece como si fuese una nación de la Unión Europea (en el caso de la Comunidad Valenciana). Esto es inadmisible.

Te pido que añadas "support" y tu firma en la opción Satesclop's red map. Mil gracias por adelantado. Satesclop 03:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion regarding merging History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage being held at Talk:History of Carthage#Merge. You are being approached as you are a recent or significant editor of one or other of the articles, or because you have expressed interest in the merge previously. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits... I am going to revert the change from normal to "curly" x, in line with the WP IPA guide for German. Note that Wiktionary is not a "Reliable Source" in the official sense, because it is no more reliable than WP (so a sly insert of any nonsense into both would mean they were preserved for ever!) But please see, and if possible comment on my earlier comment about this at talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Pronunciation footnote for name. In English, I suspect the pronunciation varies hugely from place to place, and by individual, but I have always heard "Ba:x"; a list of all the possibilities could get out of hand... (Please reply here!) Imaginatorium (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Imaginatorium, I appreciate your concern, and agree with your points. I'll take a look at that after lunch. Carlstak (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia seems to have an inconsistent policy on date ranges. The clearest policy is MOS:DATERANGE which says:

the range's end year is usually abbreviated to two digits:

  •   1881–86;  1881–92 (not 1881–6;  1881 – 86)

but this conflicts with other advice (e.g. I can't find it now, but I'm sure I've seen 1881–1892 recommended when expressing someone's lifespan or a series of football seasons).

As for defence vs defense at Belém Tower, I'm well aware that defence is the British spelling (I'm British myself) but I've been editing a few articles on Lisbon subjects today and most of then either use a mixture of American and British spellings and phrases, or wholly American, so I was trying to follow MOS:RETAIN. Unlike other Lisbon articles, Belém Tower does, however, seem to use mainly British spellings (despite a few Americanisms like "protested the site's degradation"), so defence is perhaps better here. WP:ENGVAR is a bit of a minefield when there are no "strong national ties" to the topic; even though my preferred style is British, I'd rather an article was written consistently in US English rather than a mixture of the two. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Dave.Dunford. Yes, I could have sworn that I saw the "1881–1892" format recommended in some policy page as well. Regarding the British spellings, I did a lot of editing on the "Belém Tower" article to fix the very rough state of English it was in. I have a special interest in Spanish and Portuguese subjects, and have translated a good bit of material from Spanish and Portuguese, usually into British English. I translated most of the text of History of Lisbon, using British English throughout, even though I am in the US, out of respect for my Portuguese colleagues on Wikipedia, who prefer to use British English and have set the precedent in many articles that needed work. It does seem more appropriate, given that England (then later, Great Britain) and Portugal have perhaps the oldest political alliance in the world. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can help improve these articles thanks: Romería Regional de San Benito Abad and Romería del Socorro.--83.55.92.56 (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from St. Augustine, Florida into History of St. Augustine, Florida. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, Diannaa; I got in a rush and forgot to add attribution in the edit summary. I looked over other edits where I've copied content and moved it to a new article. I found two (at least I didn't neglect to mention the fact in the respective edit summaries), and added attribution templates to their talk pages: Talk:Towns of the Costa del Sol and Talk:Municipal districts of San Salvador. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I left you a message on the talkpage of Chiadma, link. Alhaqiha (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should post this information:

• "This edit of yours, where you removed the reference to the Berber language in the statement " Arabic, along with Berber, is one of two Morocco's official languages", and changed it to "Arabic, is one of two Morocco's official languages" shows that you seem to be promoting an Arabist agenda at the expense of the rightful inclusion of the contributions of Berber culture."
  

..on EdJohnston's talk page. More evidence of Alhaqiha's POV/anti-Berber editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the suggestion, Kansas Bear. Carlstak (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir If you have time Can you check this article ?
And compare [[7]] to this
What is the reliable version ?
Again Alhaqiha reverted it and claiming that Reverted sock-edits, added sources and categories to the page.
My greetings :) 105.155.222.59 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My bad i didnt read before that suggest yours, but i can't fix all "mades" in article related on buildings developed by me, but i wont made that wrong spell again. thanks for help with that and your contributions.--Vvven (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, my friend. Your edits have been good, and I'm keeping an eye on the finer points. Best,

Carlstak (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A really thank you for your contributions[edit]

I am just a simple wikipedian user, not administrator, but i would want give you a kind of gratitude, for the important work you do within wikipedia, a neccesary work. i hope you has the same energy in the good things of the life, girlfriends, sons that there no comparison in importance. i hope you have a beautiful life if not get it.

	I want to give this a kind of gratitude for the important work you do in wikipedia, a hard work, without your edits do not understand anything, with this I mean that you are a great support.

--Vvven (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Vvven, very kind of you, and much appreciated. Carlstak (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia[edit]

Last contributions yours again was outstanding. bravo! --Vvven (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlstak gives me a suggestion, do you think the images in the article of Valencia are correct?. dont gives a bad impression?, i mean specifically with the culture section. whether that could be like a model for other cities articles i could do in a future, those images could bother to the readers? help me with that smallness hehe. please, a pleasant greeting to you.--Vvven (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your photos are quality images, Vvven, very nice ones. In future we need to avoid crowding too many of them into a section, and reducing the px is not really a solution. It is recommended to not change the default px of thumbnails, as per WP:IMAGESIZE. I've changed the sizes to default and redistributed them in the sections. I think they are a worthy addition to the article. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please be more careful of context when changing hyphens etc. as I just found 7 errors you introduced with these edits. Also please consider not changing hyphen types with scripts, as there are several editors doing this but to different types of hyphen so articles go back and forth with these types of errors creeping in. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beg pardon, KylieTastic, hyphens and dashes are not the same thing; MOS guideline is to use en dashes rather than hyphens for dates. I've fixed hundreds of errors here in my last few edits, and you focus on seven machine mistakes, and ignore all the work I've done. Unbelievable. You really take the cake. I'm not done yet, anyway, I'll put a "working" tag on the article as I edit. Sheesh. Carlstak (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Hispanos de Spanish and Mexican origin. Since you had some involvement with the List of Hispanos de Spanish and Mexican origin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Hispanic-Americans of Spanish and Mexican origin. Since you had some involvement with the List of Hispanic-Americans of Spanish and Mexican origin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlstak, re: this, in case my edit summary wasn't great, I totally get why you reverted--good watchdogging. I was concerned as well, but I figured out that editor Hike removed the convert template because the parameter he's using automatically converts metric to imperial, so {{convert}} wasn't necessary, and the geo coordinates that he removed were 00s, so they're not particularly useful. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Cyphoidbomb, very kind of you. Missed the automatic convert as I was performing the morning ritual of coffee and going through my watchlist. Will keep an eye out for that sort of thing in future, especially since I reverted a similar edit by Hike395 at another article (and self-reverted, thanks to you). Best regards, Carlstak (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlstak,

I never revert edits, however my edit/reference comes from britishlistedbuildings.co.uk, which is a well respected online listing of British Listed Buildings, and they have used as a source Cadw. It states that "In the mid C19 the Hall was occupied by the eminent Professor of History, E A Freeman". Therefore my edit "He lived in Llanrumney Hall, Cardiff in the mid 19th century" was well referenced, while "After some changes of residence, Freeman bought a house called "Somerleaze", near Wells, Somerset, and settled there in 1860" has no references at all. SethWhales ^talk 17:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Whales You didn't notice that I self-reverted with an "Oops, my mistake," at 15:02? Carlstak (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't notice. Thanks for letting me know. SethWhales ^talk 19:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I was chagrined when I saw that I'd too hastily reverted your edit, which certainly improves the article. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...for your very thorough revision of Alfonso VI of León and Castile. If you have the time, could you go over Leonor Teles? I did but could have overlooked some other errors. Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Maragm. I will be be delighted to work on the Leonor Teles article as time allows. Thank you for your work on Aldebaran69's translation. All the best. Carlstak (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, much appreciate your excellent and thorough work on Alfonso VI and the Portuguese "Lucrecia Borgia". Regards, --Maragm (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aldebaran69 and you did most of the work, Maragm, and made things easy. It has been a pleasure working with you. Carlstak (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, I am now learning English, I will correct all the defects that the page has, as I develop my language skills, I hope you give me a few weeks to fix it, I need to reverse it to start fixing it, if you allow me and if you want you can help me a little bit--Vvven (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People like Hervey de Glanvill were Normans aka "Anglo-Normans" aka "Norman French". Remember 1066? Richard II (1377-1399) was the first King of England since William who was fluent in English (it probably still wasn't his first language though). To refer to Norman crusading knights who spoke Old French and who called themselves "Franks" as "Englishmen" is - yes - an anachronism. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZinedineZidane98, I was trying to draw an analogy, but didn't bring it off, I suppose. I get your point, but consider: The WP article on the Franks says that "In the Middle Ages, the term "Frank" was used in the east as a synonym for "western European". According to the sources given, this is true. However, for us to call all of the knights in that group "Franks" is an anachronism. We could say that those knights from Flanders, Frisia, and France were "Franks", but we today would not call the Norman knights from England and Scotland "Franks" also. After all, the Norman knights from England and Scotland were the descendants of Norse raiders who acquired territories in France. We would not call them Franks. Carlstak (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to put to the article a complete bibliography, I ask you to later review the sources and stop reversing the edition of this important article--Vvven (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vvven, you should not upload this material to mainspace before all the necessary work is done. This has been explained to you previously. You can work on it in your sandbox, as per WP policy. Let me know when you've made some progress on it, and I will take a look. You can't expect other editors to do all the work that needs to be done. First, you should make sure your text is not violating copyvios, then you should find reliable sources. You know how to do these things, and it's your responsibility. If you get your text in decent shape, with sources, I will copy edit it and fix the English. Good luck. Carlstak (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are reliable my friend and there are not copyright violations and thanks for want to help fix the English.--Vvven (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is a good text that notably helps in the quality of the article--Vvven (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply