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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

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

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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My sentiments exactly, Cristiano.

Best,

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

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

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

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

Best wishes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

A really thank you for your contributions

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[reply]

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

Valencia

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

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

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

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

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

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: ((WPMILHIST Announcements)).
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]

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

It might if you were competent at writing English. You're not, and you are flouting WP policy. Carlstak (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm already adding references--Vvven (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EastFloridaHistorian, You are trying to impose a revisionist view of the history of Florida not supported by the peer-reviewed academic literature on the subject, as indicated by some of your edit summaries. For example, your summary, "Tried to remove discriminatory rhetoric against Native Floridians. FYI: It's good to be sensitive and respect other people's cultures", ignores the Spanish natives of Florida, the Floridanos, many of whom were members of families that had been in Florida for hundreds of years before the events of the so-called "Patriot War", and were most certainly "native Floridians". Being "an 8th generation Floridian" has no bearing on the correctness of your edits to the content of this article. Information added can be challenged, as you did concerning the year of Harris's killing, and must be supported, as per WP policy, by reliable sources. The neutral point of view "stuff" is also WP policy, not a personal preference. We are not here to "fight" over what content is included in the article. That is what the article talk page is for. Carlstak (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EastFloridaHistorian, you can stay off my talk page. You came here recently and were rude and disrespected me on my own talk page, and before I'd made up my mind what to do about it, you removed my reply, along with your comments. I don't have the time or the inclination to engage a person like you here. The religious sentiments you express are out of place, given your aggressive behavior here, in edit summaries you've made, and at Talk:Republic of East Florida. Your general rhetoric sounds to these ears like that of a white nationalist crusader. I get to decide what stays on my talk page, so I'm removing your last remarks and please stay away. Carlstak (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I do not care if a text I reverted into António de Oliveira Salazar article stays or not, so I will not re-revert (also I rather discuss than revert multiple times). But I ask you not to remove the exact same text for two contradictory reasons, it confuses editing. You removed it first as unsourced and now for following the source too closely, thus a copyright violation. As I said, I don't care if the text stays or not, and the second reason maybe correct. So I simply ask you to be careful when providing reasons; no problem, it happens, certainly. - Nabla (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, Nabla; I may have read the added text too hastily the first time I reverted. However, even if the IP hadn't copied the text from its source verbatim, which is the argument I should have used then, the words "seething and upstaged" (copied) together are unencyclopedic in this context, and the text was incorrectly punctuated (likely because of their copying-and-pasting), which yielded run-on sentences. I imagine that's why I misread it as unintelligible. Carlstak (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Thank you for your patience regarding both my ignorance and lack of knowledgeHoveldowns (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Hoveldowns. All the best. Carlstak (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Carlstak. It usually takes about 24 hours for template edits to appear on the article pages. Sometimes longer. Let me know if this helps. -- M2545 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, thank you very much. Carlstak (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Carlstak: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings1)) to send this message

Thanks, Winkelvi. Best wishes and same to you. Carlstak (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPI: [8] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good. Carlstak (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's the same guy, across the board. The IP, too. Looking at the bio of the attorney who has the photo tells a similar story. I wish people would just do this kind of thing the right way. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wouldn't that be nice? The guy gets emotionally carried away, not a trait one would want his lawyer to have. Carlstak (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read some articles on Frank Abrams and the photo. In the articles he's quoted as saying the photo "might end up at an auction house" in the future. My guess is he's trying to use Wikipedia as encyclopedic proof the photo is documented as real should the auction house scenario become a reality. Just a theory, of course. Thanks for standing firm on this. What a waste of good time that had to be spent. Merry, merry to you! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I thought the same thing. I would hope he's learned something from this episode, but I doubt it. He'll probably just double down, at least in his own mind. Best, Carlstak (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

Carlstak,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Thanks, I'm still recovering from Festivus. Carlstak (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good afternoon, I would like to ask for your help to edit a Draft: Israel Lucas Góis Monteiro, if I help? several references follow.

Let's put this article on the air.

https://exame.abril.com.br/blog/instituto-millenium/no-mercado-de-acoes-o-maior-erro-e-querer-dinheiro-pra-amanha/

https://financenews.com.br/2017/09/em-2018-teremos-uma-entrada-grande-de-chineses-e-americanos-no-brasil/

http://blog.maxieduca.com.br/bolsa-valores-empreendedorismo/

http://www.folhadelondrina.com.br/economia/otimismo-chega-ao-mercado-de-fusoes-e-aquisicoes-993518.html

http://www.matogrossoeconomico.com.br/noticias/milionario-brasileiro-vai-investir-r-10-milhoes-em-startups-do-agronegocio/16519

http://www.jornalpontagrossa.com/2017/10/brasil-milionario-paranaense-esta.html

http://abvcap.com.br/sala-de-imprensa/noticias-imprensa.aspx?c=pt-BR&id=3841

http://www.jornalmeuparana.com/portal/ver_noticia.php?ver=14278

http://www.infomoney.com.br/blogs/investimentos/alem-do-dinheiro/post/7099448/empreender-sonho-possivel

http://thebrazilianfinancial.com/entrevista/

https://www.jornalempresariall.com.br/noticias/gerais/milionario-paranaense-vai-investir-r10-milhoes-em-startups-do-agronegocio

https://www.folhageral.com/empresas-e-negocios/2017/12/investidor-milionario-cria-maior-empresa-de-relacoes-com-investidores-da-america-latina/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WksBolteditor (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I have a long to-do list of other projects. Carlstak (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I noticed your recent cleanups and improvements to the article on Nathan Bedford Forrest, and as you commented there's been "quite a show" going on there. I've stumbled into the fray as a result of a WP:3O request, but it is way more complicated than a two-editor dispute over content. I suspect the article has a POV problem, but I do not have the topic-knowledge necessary to assess that properly. There's probably also an article ownership issue. Several editors (most recently Deisenbe who called me in) have raised issues on the Talk page, only to be firmly told that "There is no dispute". Which kind of suggests there is one. I'd like to get the article properly reviewed for NPOV -- I'm not asking you to do that yourself (unless you'd like to ) but if you support the idea, would you consider keeping an eye on the article to see if we can keep a POV-check tag in place without it getting reverted? Thanks FrankP (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FrankP, I agree that the POV tag should remain in the article till these issues are resolved. I will keep an eye on it, and will evaluate each section as time allows (I have a big real-life project going now). The entire article, being one about such a disputed subject, certainly needs many more citations from reliable sources. I will work to improve it. Carlstak (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you accept this as a source? http://tennessee-scv.org/ForrestHistSociety/quotes.html

Also Williams, Edward F. (1969), Fustest with the mostest; the military career of Tennessee's greatest Confederate, Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest Memphis, Distributed by Southern Books

deisenbe (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's ok as a source, deisenbe; I just hesitate to reinforce the incorrect colloquial version, even with the clarification. To my ear, it sounds a bit too cutesy to have actually been used much by troops.

I'm old enough that when in 1965 I went to see the Cyclorama in Atlanta, there were still several widows of Civil War veterans alive, and many people in their eighties were the children of Civil War vets. I grew up among Southern people who spoke with thick accents, the older ones of whom still told handed-down stories about the war, and I never heard any speech that included phrases similar to this so-called "cracker Southern dialect".

If you really want to use it, though, I won't object. Carlstak (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Carlstak, to see if you can please take part in this discussion in the Colombia article i added the tourism section and put better images in the article and the user User:JShark has reverted my editions ten times, I appreciate that you help solve this.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want a concensus. The other user just told me that he didn't care about the opinions of the other users. --JShark (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the following message from the user ILoveCaracas (talk

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colombia&diff=831508383&oldid=831508165 Revision as of 23:10, 20 March 2018 (edit) (undo) (thank) ILoveCaracas (talk | contribs) (i dont care if portugal is a featuring artcile, try to delete that images there before that block you)

Please use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As a first step, I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion. --JShark (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I'd rather not get involved. Carlstak (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs fixing also on Maroons (people). Thanks. deisenbe (talk)

Thanks for the notice. Will do soon. Carlstak (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done.

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palapa (structure), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tagalog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you let me put "in the middle of nowhere" (in quotes) back in? It is accurate, metaphorically, and makes the point better than "quite isolated".deisenbe (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, deisenbe. I changed it because it seemed redundant to say "as isolated as could be" and "in the middle of nowhere" in the following sentence. Could you leave the quote marks out, though? I don't think they're necessary and look out of place in the context. By the way, all the work you've done on this article (and many others, of course) is appreciated. Thanks, Carlstak (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that of the floors are translation errors as I speak Spanish I think that some seem to be like that but that are not, that's why you are helping us all of who edit in wikipedia, and you do it very well--ILoveCaracas (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m working on him. Just got an article. Give me a couple of days. deisenbe (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure thing, Deisenbe, no problem. Carlstak (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’d like to know your evidence for Hidlis or Hildis. Owsley never uses that form and I’ve got the article in front of me. deisenbe (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have Jstor access and downloaded their PDF of Prophet of War: Josiah Francis and the Creek War. On the first page of the file, p. 273, Owsley spells it "Hildis"; on pp. 285 and 289 he spells it "Hidlis". These are the only instances of either in his text (at least in this pdf, and not counting the spelling in footnotes). Carlstak (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what text you're looking at, but I logged into Jstor again and checked the online preview of those pages, same results. In the first sentence of the article, Owsley spells it "Hildis"; on p. 285 he spells it "Hidlis", and on p. 289, he writes, "The English always referred to him as Hidlis Hadjo, which, according to Theron Nuñez, meant "crazy medicine". Carlstak (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You’re right and I was just going to leave you a note saying I was wrong. Since I don’t have access to a digital version, would you see if he ever uses Hillis? deisenbe (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, my friend. Will check when back from beach walk. Carlstak (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I searched and found no instance of the spelling Hillis. Haven't finished reading the whole thing, but it's a great article. Carlstak (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hidlis and Hildis seem unlikely to be correct, because he would have noted the change in spelling. So one’s a misprint. Any idea which? Which is used more? deisenbe (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, several university-published sources spell it "Hildis": American Indian Medicine Ways: Spiritual Power, Prophets, and Healing, Native American Spirituality: A Critical Reader, Deerskins and Duffels: Creek Indian Trade with Anglo-America, 1685-1815, and Restoring the Chain of Friendship: British Policy and the Indians of the Great Lakes, 1783-1815. "Hidlis" has more sources. I don't think either was a misprint, I think Owsley deliberately used both variants. Reliable sources use one or the other, but "Hidlis" is more commonly used among them; Owsley and Smith's authoritative Filibusters and Expansionists: Jeffersonian Manifest Destiny, 1800-1821 spells it "Hidlis". Carlstak (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just as an aside, the Bulletin published by the Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology in 1907 gives the corrupted spellings "Hillishago" and "Hillishager" as variants also. "Hillishago" was used mostly in the mid to late 1800s and early 1900s; "Hillishager" was given in a few sources as among the variants of Hillis Hadjo. Carlstak (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Are you familiar with Negro Comrades of the Crown: African Americans and the British Empire Fight the U.S. Before Emancipation? It has an interesting discussion of the Negro Fort and is an illuminating source of information about the relationship between African Americans and the British. Carlstak (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you have contributed most of the text in this article. I wrote a blog post on the subject last year (The Spanish Mission Trail), and hope to add some of that material to the WP article. There are some differences in details, which I'll be happy to discuss with you if any issues arise. - Donald Albury 10:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Donald, I would be delighted if you added to the article; I have great respect for your work, having seen your contributions to (and creation of) many of the articles on my watchlist. I've wanted to add to it myself, but there are so many other articles that need attention. May I request that you place the draft in your sandbox before sending it to mainspace, if that is agreeable? I know it will be of high quality (as is your blog post); I would like to review it and perhaps make some additions to it myself, subject to your review, of course. Thank you very much. Carlstak (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll put up a draft after I get the sources sorted out. I didn't bother with page references in the blog, so I'm having to search through the sources, including a very long dissertation. Thank you for the expansion of Panton, Leslie & Company. I've always thought I should get back to it, but it never rose high enough on my todo list. Have you ever looked at what was there before I rescued it? - Donald Albury 11:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn't and just took a look. "Panton was a Muskogean merchant" is funny. Carlstak (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Fort Mose Historic State Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mandinka

Francisco Menéndez (creole) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mandinka

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple of your emendations I disagree with and would like you to refonsider:

• Animal husbandry (domestic animals) he particularly disapproved of, to the point of slaughtering his own livestock (and burning his house) —- adding the word “livestock” is unnecessary, I don’t see how it adds anything and it makes the sentence weaker.

• St. Marks on Jackson's orders. — I don’t think “by Jackson” would be taken as meaning that Jackson hung him himself. Your revision makes it weaker, as I see it. deisenbe (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are minor changes and I take your point about "on Jackson's orders", so I've reverted my edit of that.

Regarding your first point, I've changed the sentence to: "He particularly disapproved of the husbandry of domestic animals, to the point of slaughtering his own (and burning his house) when he decided".

My reasoning for adding "livestock" in the first place was that regardless of the intended meaning in your expression: "Animal husbandry (domestic animals) he particularly disapproved of, to the point of slaughtering his own (and burning his house)", the word own, by the rules of English grammar, doesn't modify "domestic animals", because those words are segregated by parentheses; rather, they modify "animal husbandry", which doesn't make sense. Also, the construction, "Animal husbandry (domestic animals) he particularly disapproved of" is a little awkward in English. I think my new emendation neatly resolves both "problems". It has the extra benefit of disposing of the slight redundancy of having two sets of parentheses so close together in one sentence. I hope you agree. Carlstak (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good idea on using the full quote. However, it's absolutely fine to apply markup like foreign-language or words-as-words italics to clarify quotations and normalize article-wide style; that's well within the range of MOS:CONFORM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply, SMcCandish. Am I missing something? The content that was within quotes before my edit said, "Latinx elides long-standing struggles to have inequality recognized and remediated." That's not at all what the source says. Carlstak (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something then, and misunderstood your comment. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Osceola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(English below)

Olá. A Wikimedia Portugal é uma associação portuguesa sem fins lucrativos, fundada em 2009, reconhecida pela Wikimedia Foundation como "chapter" de Portugal. A nossa missão é, em geral, contribuir para a disseminação generalizada do saber e da cultura, através do incentivo à recolha e criação de conteúdos isentos de restrições de utilização, modificação e distribuição, e da difusão dos mesmos; e em particular, promover e apoiar os projetos da Wikimedia Foundation, entre os quais a Wikipédia, com ênfase para os projetos nas línguas faladas em Portugal, o português e o mirandês.

Gostaríamos de contar com o apoio de (e reciprocamente apoiar) todos os voluntários naturais, residentes ou simplesmente interessados em Portugal. Embora fundada em 2009, a associação teve um largo período de inatividade, que estamos agora a ultrapassar. Vimos por isso convidá-lo, caso nisso tenha interesse, a inscrever-se como associado da associação, demonstrar apoio à existência de um "chapter" em Portugal, e a envolver-se em atividades futuras inscrevendo-se na lista de distribuição de email. Recentemente, a Comissão de Afiliações da Wikimedia suspendeu o apoio à Wikimedia Portugal, pendente, entre outras coisas, do apoio da comunidade de editores portugueses. [9]

Agradecemos desde já!

Hi! Wikimedia Portugal is the Portuguese chapter of Wikimedia, founded in 2009 and recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation. Our mission is to contribute to the general dissemination of knowledge and culture through the incentive to the collection and creation of content without restrictions on use, modification and distribution, and promote their difusion; we promote and support the Wikimedia Foundation projects, among which Wikipedia, with emphasis on projects in Portuguese and Mirandese.

We would like however to count on the support of (and in turn ourselves support) all volunteers that are citizens, resident, or simply interested in Portugal. Despite being founded in 2009, the chapter has gone through a long period of inactivity that we are trying to overcome. We have sent you this message to invite you, if you are interested, to enroll as associate to the chapter, demonstrate your support to the existence of a chapter in Portugal, and get involved in the discussion of future activities by registering in the mailing list. Recentely, the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee suspended support to Wikimedia Portugal pending, among other things, the support from the community of portuguese editors. [10] GoEThe (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carlstak, you are absolutely right that I have made some serious mistakes which you have corrected me on, and I’m very grateful. And that my credentials are largely (not completely) irrelevant. And that I tend to shoot my moouth off about things and get riled up, sometimes unnecessariliy.

Here is where I am at. If you look at my most longest recent article, America Is Hard to See (play), you’ll see I cite all sorts of sources. Or Angola, Florida. Or Texas Confederate Museum. All of which are entirely my work.

Actually I’ve been criticized in a review for using too much documentation (in my book _A Study of “Don Quixote”,_ in Spanish _La interpretación cervantina del “Quijote”_). I could dig out the reference.

My problem is that I have a lot of knowledge but not much ability to check sources on the sort of topic like Reconquista. I live in a retirement community and my resources are limited to the Palm Beach County Public Library and whatever electronic resources I can access. I have the WP Ebsco access and have applied for others. I get some electronic resources through the public library. Interlibrary loan can get me an occasional book or article, I’m using one right now (The Maroons of Prospect Bluff and Their Quest for Freedom in the Atlantic World, isbn 9780813044544). That can take weeks and the limit is five active requests at one time. The local universitty libraries, Florida Atlantic University and Lynn University, don’t have much of what I need, and I cannot borrow things without paying. In fact the closest library where I would have the resources I need is at Florida State, where I used to teach, and that’s a 10 hour drive. The University of Miami (over an hour) and University of Florida (5-6 hours) libraries would help some but not totally. And I’ll admit that it’s a lot of work, I’ve already done tons of it, I’m retired, and I do what I feel like. I’ve paid my dues.

Something like Reconquista I care passionately about. It’s a vitally important article, as I see it. It has a lot of things wrong with it, as I see it. So rather than do nothing, I make undocumented edits and people like you hopefully catch the mistakes. Actually I make undocumented edits and original research all over the place, most of it never challenged. Here’s an example: Miguel de Cervantes. I was the editor for 8 years of the journal of the Cervantes Society of America, which shows that I must know quite a bit about Cervantes, but not that I’m infallible or that my memory is perfect. I believe Cervantes was an accountant (not a dignified profession then) for part of his life. He worked as a purchasing agent and tax collector and had to keep accounts. He was friends with two bankers. In his works there are a lot of figures and computations. Cervantes knew multiplication which was not a common skill then or taught in school (you had to learn it from a book). There is no published source that I can cite to support my contention that he was an accountant. I could write one, and probably get it published, but that is a lot of work and it would be read by maybe 20 people. If I just go ahead and make the edit to the Cervantes article, I reach a much larger audience of people with much less effort. I am quite convinced that I am doing much more good than harm. But I’m grateful for any errors you catch. deisenbe (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Deisenbe, for your considered response, it's much appreciated. I felt obligated to respond when you complained on the talk page that "I have basically wasted a lot of time with corrections that got taken out." Carlstak (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn’t mean your corrections, which are thoughtful and explained. deisenbe (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Deisenbe, but I got your meaning the first time. I meant that I felt obligated to respond on behalf of those WP editors who have reverted your unsourced edits, to whom your complaint seemed to be addressed. Carlstak (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies, my attempt to merge after an edit conflict did not work correctly. If I could impose on you: I’m writing on a pad, and I am not competent with it yet. If I try to fix it, it’ll likely get worse. Could you put your section back in for me? Qwirkle (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: Either I've fixed this, or perhaps it never was a real problem, but an artifact of editing on one server vs. another, but if there is still a problem, then It still needs to be fixed. Qwirkle (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notice, Quirkle, but I'm not sure where you mean. Could you show me the diff link, so I know what you're talking about, even if it's fixed? I'm working on an all-consuming real-life project now, and I have less than an hour online tonight, so I don't have a chance to ferret it out. I'm glad you're making needed corrections to "Negro Fort" and "Prospect Bluff Historic Sites". Carlstak (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can’t find it either. It was connected with this edit, I think . Started edit, came up with edit conflict, selected own version to work from, slid the screen...and blame, edit accepted, without me hitting publish...at least not deliberately. Qwirkle (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still not sure, Quirkle. Could it be the duplication of the post I made that started,"Quirkle's changes are correct, respect WP policy, and improve the article."? It's there now, and the dupe was deleted. Carlstak (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dunno. That might be it; all I knew for sure is that I added material, and saw the total size shrink, never a good sign. If there’s no problem, though, feel free to nuke this forthwith. Qwirkle (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, thanks for the notice. Carlstak (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do what you want, but by reverting all the editions without a solid reason (since you know that valencian is not a language, but a dialect), you are discouraging people to participate in wikipedia. Imposition is never a good argument.176.167.249.39 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're just nit-picking. No one's saying that Valencian is a language; even as a dialect of Catalan, it's still a Valencian word. You seem to have a habit of misrepresenting things—you, among other IPs, are the one who changed the stable version of the text, not me. Carlstak (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.Reply[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Carlstak. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great job on the Salvador Jose de Muro article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Barkeep49; the feedback is much appreciated. Carlstak (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Gullah.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 03:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add ((bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer)) to your talk page.Reply[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you rad the talk page, then the soruce.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed these charts have been added all over the States articles. Even GA articles were WP:PROSE is normally followed....look at Massachusetts#Politics just horrible text sandwich for a chart with little value. Wonder if we should start a wider talk see if others see value in federal results in State articles.--Moxy (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm all for it if you want to start the process. Carlstak (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please feel free to tweak. ... Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#‎Federal election charts in State articles.--Moxy (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Always revert. There's no source and it gets added to various articles. I've no idea why. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll keep an eye out for it. Carlstak (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the removal of my edit to the article. I am new to the process and agree that the factoid does not belong in the intro. The problem remains that the unsourced statement that he was declared by JPII to be patron saint of the internet remains and is used a source elsewhere on the internet. I do have references for it not being declared prior to JPII death. Perhaps a subheading on the article under "legacy" discussing the Internet hoax? ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} Savagedoc (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Savagedoc. I don't have time at the moment to check your sources, which are not available to me, but personal websites are generally not to be used as sources on WP. Pertinent journals published by respectable institutions are fine. This reliable, academic source I found says, "In 1999, Roman Catholic Internet surfers promoted naming St. Isidore of Seville, a seventh-century bishop and the author of the twenty volume proto-encyclopedia Etymologiae, the patron saint of the Internet... In any event, the Vatican announced in 2001 that it was seriously considering naming Isidore the patron saint of Internet users and computer programmers."^[5] The Encyclopedia of Monasticism says, "In 1999 after much study, the Pontifical Council for Social Communications declared Isidore of Seville to be the patron saint of the Internet."^[6] Saints Preserved: An Encyclopedia of Relics says, "Saint Isidore of Seville is the patron saint of the Internet. Feast day: April 4."^[7] If you would like to work up a bit to include in the article, these reliable academic sources are suitable as references. I agree that the legacy section would be the place for it. What do you propose? I won't be able to review until this evening, about 12 hours from now. Carlstak (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because something is famous, doesn't mean it should be poorly sourced. For more information, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Ref-checking (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, but you seem to have misinterpreted my comment, and ignore the fact that I added three reliable sources. I made the comment and left the link to the clip so that interested readers could watch it. The WP policy you quote, with which I am familiar, doesn't even apply anyway, because James Dean is not living or recently deceased. It's not that important to me, but the clip is not contentious and readers might like to see it. Your time would be better spent assisting in finding reliable sources rather than adding tags. Carlstak (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's talk about the etymology of Hidalgo.

This argument has bothered me for years, more than the existence of WP.I am aware that the popular notion is that the word is a contractionof hijo de algo, and that this ideation is reflected in the likes of Encylopaedia Brittanica, but I have had issues with Brittanica as it is politically (religiously, ideologically motived),just like many editors on WP.

As you know hijo de algo means son of something, and the turn of phrase is nonsense in both Spanish and English translation, and that is not "original research". Son of something is stating that a man is son of an object. Others are aware of the nonsense and have tried to assert that it means son of somebody. Then along comes others who rationalize and obfuscate claiming that something means "riches".

The only problem with hijo del Godo. Is the "del",we need to discover where "al" enters into the etymology, and I hold that here we have an influence that shows up in the Spanish language in many forms.. Arabic. Al is Arabic for "of" or "of the", You see that in Arabic names e. Muhammad al Tikriti. In other words hijo de al godo, a mixed language phrase, which is not uncommon in the Spanish language see Algeciras, and that is one case. With your background and knowledge I am sure that you can find many other mixed Arabic and Spanish words and phrases.

OK I can see where someone could claim that this statement is "orginal research" But we really don't have much to explain the etymology of hidalgo as son of something insults and assaults reason and language.Oldperson (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oldperson, I was looking at the raw markup and didn't notice that your edit added hidden text, but in any case, your comments were not written in correct English: you misspelled "Britannica" and "usage", you omitted necessary spacing between words, as when you wrote the nonsensical words "On the other hand it to claim that hidalgo" with no space after the previous sentence, as well as multiple other instances of omitting spaces. It's not the responsibility of other editors to fix sloppy editing. Your contributions to WP (even in hidden text), need to be written in correct English. Any visible text in the article that makes possibly controversial assertions about disputed matters would need to be supported by reliable sources. Carlstak (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Carlstak, just saw your intervention here. Thanks for that. The editor called me a troll and reverted on every page where I undid his unsourced edits, but subsequently did add sources, which is what matters. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome, Rui. Glad to have been of service. Carlstak (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your help with Parris Island and for your kind comments. For the record, I've added a little explanation also to the Port Royal Island article (as well as the old map from there - it usefully shows the 'Paris Island' spelling). Davidships (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Surfing Barnstar
		For your work on Surf culture.--evrik (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, evrik, very kind of you, and I must say that's a cool barnstar. I don't feel that I deserve it, yet, though. I'm sure we can get the article into top form—surf culture is an important subject and deserves first-class coverage. I'm working on the Spirituality section right now; I've found a good bit of material that I need to read. I may be able to get at least something up tonight. Carlstak (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• FYI - As part of the clean-up effort, I just cleaned up Glossary of surfing. --evrik ^(talk) 21:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool, but don't change anything on my talk page like the reflist template you just removed. It was added by another user, and it's just as well that it's gone, but it's rude to arbitrarily change a user's talk page that way. Carlstak (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, I didn't remove anything. I added the template because the references were showing up her at the bottom. --evrik ^(talk)

Not a big deal, but it was jarring to see my talk page changed that way. I'm not at all upset about it, it just would have been less surprising if you had mentioned it your edit summary. Peace. I'm still reading and working on the "Spirituality" section; I've found a lot of stuff and it may take a couple days to digest it, write something up, and organize the references. I applaud your energy and zeal to get surf-related articles in shape. Everywhere I look, I see more work to be done. Carlstak (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The user Melroross is vandalizing again the Spaniards article.

He has erased all the content of the Lead and is copying all the content of the article “Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula” and pasting it in this article. Basically he is removing content with sources and converting the article in an entirely genetic article. NormanGear (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord teamReply[reply]

Thanks for copy editing Goths. Currently Krakkos has gotten both of us blocked form editing. I think when you de-linked [[Herwig Wolfram]] you accidentally created "Herwig WolframHerwig Wolfram".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it, thanks. Carlstak (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User talk:Carlstak, your zealous eye for detail is appreciated. However, I suggest you moderate your rants- the comma may not be used in the American variant of English as it is in England but that doesn’t make it an error. Also, the Suebians were never in Catalonia- the Franks were. I added that very useful piece information which you had removed. Looking forward to a continued and productive cooperation Melroross (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I beg your pardon? There was nothing rantish about my edit summary, and I assume you're talking about where you wrote "The Suebians of Northern, central Portugal, Galicia; were the most numerous of the Germanic tribes." which uses a comma and a semicolon incorrectly. Your writing in English is fairly good, but it's obviously not your first language, so please don't lecture me about proper punctuation in my native tongue. Perhaps you thought I was ranting because of my comment about the "useless info" added to unknown parameters; I don't know if you added that or not, but if you did, you should have noticed the ugly red warnings in preview mode concerning them, and you certainly should know better by now than to wikilink the names of very well-known countries. Also, the reason I removed the bit about the Frankish kings was that I had no idea what you meant by "along with Catalonia with the Frank kings" (nor would anyone else), which, as I said, makes no sense. If you need help composing in proper English, please give me a shout.;-) Carlstak (talk)

Good morning Carlstak, first of all I hope you will accept my apology for my mistakes in editing, and for your work in correcting my writing errors in English. It was certainly a bad job and I regret it. I agree with what you've written: it's not our place to make value judgements that violate neutral-point-of-view, because I myself have corrected edits of other users who had made the same mistake, I certainly didn't have a good day.

I'll be more careful in the future.--REKKWINT (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, REKKWINT, for your kind note. It's refreshing to hear such a gracious reply. I wish you all the best, and happy editing. Carlstak (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carlstak, What was really nice was your answer. With best wishes. --REKKWINT (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Leningrad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Front (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll be online again tomorrow. Good night. --evrik ^(talk) 04:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Carlstak! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 03:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reverting my edit on White privilege, which I'd made in error and then (uncharacteristically) forgot to proofread. Of course, "is" is much better than "refers to". NightHeron (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this, NightHeron. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I hereby gift you the Copyeditor's Barnstar, for your unwavering commitment at fixing the broken english from this humble servant.:) Asqueladd (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Asqueladd, I consider this a high compliment coming from such an excellent editor as yourself. Best regards, Carlstak (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Carlstak, you have greatly improved my editing in Battle of Covadonga, and I really appreciate that. I feel bad about giving you a lot of work again. Sorry Carlstak.

Finally just a comment, my link was to a PDF with an index, this is true, but the PDF has 11 pages, and page number 8 corresponds to the page that interests us which is number 5 of the document written in the newspaper El Museo Universal by F. Navarro Villoslada. This is visible at least with Acrobat Reader in Windows, wich it displays a column on the left with thumbnails of each page.

Regarding more editions in English I think I'm going to rest for now, well that's all.Greetings.--REKKWINT (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply, REKKWINT. Hmmm, I don't know how the pdf appears in Acrobat Reader; I use Foxit Reader in Windows because it's less vulnerable to malicious code being inserted. Only the index page appears in the file in my browser, and there is the only the one thumbnail visible. I have reverted the last edit you made to the article, see my edit summary. Carlstak (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You say: "the acute accent is on the a in the text, which I merely copied and pasted from the Google plain text download—-it is present in the original text of the magazine..." that's true. I found it hard to believe it was your mistake, but I want to give you an explanation: The notification of your reversion arrives when I'm reading the PDF, (it's very casual that this has happened, and it's true), then that's why I just realized at this moment that "á" is in the original article, and appears many times, it must be Spanish spelling from the SXIX, I think, and when I was going to reverse my own edition I see that you have already done the reversion. It's a shame. I'm so Sorry, that's all and I repeat that shortly my reversion would have appeared in the history page. Well I wish you good editions, and improving WP every day. Thanks.--REKKWINT (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. Well, I have a compulsion to fix typos and other errors, but I'm certainly not immune to making a mistake myself now and then. Carlstak (talk)

This edit [11] seems to have upset you, so perhaps a quick explanation should be forthcoming.

The edit prior to yours added unreferenced material, and your subsequent followup edit slightly modified that unreferenced material. Your edit had to be reverted before the previous edit could be dealt with. Hopefully you understand. SolarFlash^Discussion 18:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply, SolarFlash. To be clear, the first edit I made affected only content already in the article, and altered nothing in the changes user Stephanieconn made.

I'm glad you brought this up, because after reading the given source, I don't see how her edit could remotely be deemed adding "unreferenced" material by changing "they were largely illiterate" to "many were illiterate in their native tongue", a statement which would seem to logically follow from this on page 52 of the report, Gaelic Nova Scotia: An Economic, Cultural, and Social Impact Study, by Michael Kennedy: "Gaelic literacy was actually lost following the advent of the new compulsory English educational system but not effectively replaced with English literacy."

I would note also that your edit restored her amusing typo "perdisted", so given these facts, it seems to me that you reverted a bit too quickly. Carlstak (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I am aware you use a possessive to show the relationship or (chain of) from the name, "Hawkins financial reforms of the Navy upset many who had vested interests." Why would you employ a possessive on that sentence? The sentence is describing an action, not a relationship. So I am confused by the English here, it seems different to what I was taught. Govvy (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I understand it, you are using the name "Hawkins" as part of an adjectival collocation (adjective+noun) in "Hawkins financial reforms", which, while perhaps technically correct, seems more confusing to me than the possessive with apostrophe denoting that the reforms were a result of his agency, as if they belonged to him. Carlstak (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His agency? He is still working for the Queen know, I don't know, looks more confusing to me with the double s. Govvy (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By agency, I mean "action or intervention producing a particular effect." I would also refer you to MOS:POSS: "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending with an s, add 's". Carlstak (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Carlstak, I want to inform you that I have edited Visigoths and Goths, including the paragraph according to Joseph F. O'Callaghan. I have quoted you in the history of the page. Greetings .--REKKWINT (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for catching the typo, REKKWINT, and for your kind notice. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Carlstack, thank you for your good advice. It's incredible forty five editions for a ridiculous number of images. I've had a lot of work but I can't stand vandalism. You know I have been about to employ the following method: a slight modification in thr first vandalic edition and with this we managed to undo all the subsequent changes, but I have been careful, when seeing intermediate editions made by you, this ruled out that option. I am sure he has made forty-five editions believing that he would make the reversal as difficult as possible. He may be a vandal but he knows the WP edition, he has even made links, and modified some code text.

Thank you for your good advice, and also for your spelling corrections when I make a not quite correct edition. You show a lot of patience,and a lot of interest in improving WP by keeping an "encyclopedic spirit" at all times, but one thing is certain, in the end there are some good editions that add new content that did not appear in the various articles in which we have both intervened

I will study what you tell me about menu buttons to automate common tasks and WP:ROLLBACK,it's very interesting. Greetings --REKKWINT (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect the IP is someone's sockpuppet, but it's best not to call him a vandal. Using Twinkle is very simple—once you enable it by ticking the box under "gadgets" be sure to hit the "save" button at the bottom of the page. Also, you'll see a "preferences" link next to the Twinkle listing, you can further define how you want the tool to perform there. You've made quite a few good edits; I've noticed that you have a tendency to place refs before punctuation, rather than after. Please be sure to check that you've placed commas or full stops (periods) in front of the ref markup before you hit "publish". Regards, Carlstak (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per an online dictionary:

unwilling/ (ʌnˈwɪlɪŋ) / adjective 1. unfavourably inclined; reluctant 2. performed, given, or said with reluctance

So I meant it in the second sense. 😊 Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not an historian or scholar, by any means. However, I do enjoy reading historical articles, here on WP. I am fairly astonished, and dismayed, by the so-called improvements made to the article. I have watchlisted, obviously, and can add my voice to disapprove, at the very least, the poor English in the "improvements". Thanks for your edits, so that Andrew Lancaster is not a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Tribe of Tiger, I really appreciate your moral support. I don't mean to be short, but I have to go to work. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries! Perhaps, now that the three of us have said.."we realize that you did not intend to deceive", it may pave the way for a better dialogue. It makes me rather nervous when a "new editor" wishes to force wholesale changes on a fairly stable article. I certainly do not have the experience or knowledge that you or User:Andrew Lancaster possess in the topic area. But it is a better choice to make small changes, relying on consensus. However, here on your talk, I feel free to say that I was appalled, not only by the "English", but by the rather weird new images that were added. I felt as though I were entering Mordor, of Tolkein fame. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Tribe of Tiger. Haha, I agree about the images, they really were weird and lent a dark aspect to the page. Sechinsic is deluded about the quality of his writing in English, and his calling us "impolite" is absurd, considering that he wants to impose his version of the article on everyone else (meaning the whole world—shudder). I must say that I don't have the expertise in this particular subject that Andrew Lancaster does, so my contributions would be mostly in copy editing and fact-checking. I do have well-developed research skills that can be applied. Carlstak (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think editing has started again on this article and so far things like style and structure are probably more to the point than details in the content. So continuing input would be good from both of you. When it comes to those types of issues, it is always awkward if there are only two editors. It is a shame Sirfurboy is not active any more!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a shame about Sirfurboy. Every voice of reason is needed. Carlstak (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the new edits look good! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They do look good. Carlstak (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently undid an edit of yours in this article, which you then undid. This was fine with me, I went to the talk page to continue discussing what we had begun and discovered that much of what we were discussing had been slash & burned by an annon editor, certainly not me. So I started a discussion on the talk page and hope to see you there. One of the points we were discussing was the cultural appropriation issue, I have the book, the source used and would like to post the entire paragraph because, it's late and I can't exactly remember why, but it seemed relevant. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notice, Carptrash. I will join the discussion once I'm fully awake. Carlstak (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A good idea, and I added "sober" to my list of "what I need to be to edit" many years ago. Carptrash (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. Thanks for the vote of confidence at 'Confederate Army' Talk. "I'll be back."