User talk:Schlosser67/Archive 1

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Schlosser67. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! satusuro 08:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Picromerite has been accepted[edit]

Picromerite, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tagging (stamp) has been accepted[edit]

Tagging (stamp), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPI Request complete[edit]

Your import request has completed to: Buch Abbey. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail from The Wikipedia Library![edit]

Hello, Schlosser67. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.— {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy attribution[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Croydon Variobahn into Variobahn. 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. I have provided attribution for you in this instance in an edit summary located here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for this information. Not all of these templates are well known (perhaps links to the most important ones should be shown each time a page is being edited), which is why I put an informal note on the talk page of Variobahn. I shall add the copy notices according to the template. --Schlosser67 (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the note you posted at the talk page. Thanks for doing that! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, my note was not decorated with a big purple arrow ;-) I've added the copy notices, if you'd be so kind to check that they are correctly implemented, I'd be grateful. --Schlosser67 (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NCR14[edit]

Thank you for majorly improving the article! It now looks much better, and is fit for purpose! Mark999 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic brick buildings[edit]

Hallo Schlosser, wenn du nun schon dabei bist: Vielleicht lässt sich noch erwähnen, dass es auch innnerhalb der großen Regionen wie auch ihrer Teilregionen oft eine ziemliche Bandbreite gibt. Ein paar Beispiele für dich, nicht um sie in den Einleitungstext zu schreiben:

Der Belfried von Dünkirchen Backstein ist pur, die Kirche St. Eloi, der er gleichzeitig als Kirchturm dient, hat aber einiges Werksteindecor, im Westen üppig, am Chor mehr wie an den Lübecker Domtürmen.
Die westlichsten weißen Putzflächen "hinter" dem Backstein habe ich in s'Hertogenbosch gefunden, am Südrand der Rhein-Maas Unterläufe.
In den Kerngebieten der Backsteingotik gibt es unter den weniger bekannten Beispielen jede Menge "gewachsenes" Materialpatchwork, manchmal durchaus repräsentativ.
Unter der auf den resten Blick recht geschlossenen Gruppe bayrischer Backsteinkirchen gibt es doch deutliche Unterschiede, in welchem Ausmaß und an welchen Stellen man etwas Werkstein eingesetzt hat.
Dass ausgeklügelter Einsatz von Formziegeln und Terracottafriesen einerseits und Werksteinverzierungen andererseits einander nicht ausschließen, sieht man besonders in Norditalien, aber auch in südlichen Teilen Polens – ohne dass man in Polen stilistisch eine scharfe Grenze zwischen ostseenah und ostseefern ziehen könnte.

Yours'

--Ulamm (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für die Hinweise. Einige davon sind vielleicht am bestem im Artikel Brick Gothic aufgehoben. Ich habe versucht, die Vorbemerkung zur Liste der Bauwerke so knapp wie möglich und so ausführlich wie nötig zu halten. Was die Liste selbst angeht: Sie soll vor allem repräsentativ sein. Eine gewisse vornehme Zurückhaltung bei der Aufnahme weiterer Bauten scheint mir daher angebracht. Objekte wie der alte Mildensteiner Bergfried, die in Teilen gotisch und aus Ziegeln sind, aber sonst nur Teil eines Ensembles sind, sind wohl kaum repräsentativ. Ihre Aufnahme schadet eher der Übersicht, zumal die Liste viel zu lang würde, wenn wir alle bekannten gotischen Ziegelbauten aufnehmen wollten.

For those who do not read German: Ulamm suggested some ideas to illustrate the "bandwidth" of the Brick Gothic style. I believe they might have a place in the main article, but the introduction to the list should be as short as possible and as informative as necessary. Also, I believe it is not necessary to include any known building that has been erected partly in brick and in the Gothic epoch, because the list would then become too long and cumbersome, while it is supposed to present a representative selection.

--Schlosser67 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it important to show the historical geography of architecture. Just on the borderlines many examples are not very classical. But including as many examples as possible, as long as brick is both constructive and visible, shows that also in the central regions of Brick Gothic there are many non-classical examples (as I've already mentioned in my first post).

For long, but not in the next fortnight, I'd like to improve the navigation in the list. It is possible to have additional navigation menues for the various countries (repeated under each headline) and an alphabetical navigation within each single table.

In addition, there should be a map. It is not very difficult to make a simple bitmap. But I'd prefer an intelligent zoomable solution.--Ulamm (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I do not want to include (an have excluded in three cases), are entirely lost buildings and those, which are nowadays entirely plastered. And I have left outside the Isartor in Munich, as the commissioner of monuments for Munich has told me that originally it was plastered.--Ulamm (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are meaning well, but you seem to be going beyond the aims of Wikipedia. Even with the restrictions you mentioned, the list will become too unwieldy. It cannot be a replacement for scholarly work. I get the impression that the subject is dear to your heart, and you have already put a lot of thought and research in it. If that is so, perhaps you'd wish to write a monograph on it, and have it reviewed and published. That would be much better than battling it out here, and your work could then serve as a reference in its own right. --Schlosser67 (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ban of original research has its special reason and mustn't be understood as a guidline to produce third hand literature on the base of second hand literature.

Much of the second hand literature is so ill founded that the golden rule is or ought to be, "look for the sources of your sources".

The ban of original research means that you mustn't write an article on own observations that can't be verified.

The use of any published documents or public access documents (such as stored in state archives) as well as photographs (of static subjects, not of actions) does not create unprovable statements.

--Ulamm (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And on our special subject it can be noted, "the more selection, the more POV" VERSUS "the less selection, the less POV."--Ulamm (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC

Not sure what you mean with your last statement - maybe it would be clearer in German? Do you mean that a larger or broader selection would take into acount more points of view? Within reason, I agree with that, meaning that I prefer quality over quantity of the examples. The latter can easily obscure the former for the non-specialist reader. Hence my suggestion for fewer examples in the list. - On the topic of OR, I did not suggest that you write "third-hand literature". I'm sure you have identified your primary sources for your studies, and that you can present your conclusions properly. However, if you are leaning towards one of several scholarly opinions on the subject (which, by the way, is not my specialism), and think it important enough to let people know, I'd suggest a separate publication because Wikipedia, on the other hand, needs to consider the various viewpoints with their due weight for neutrality reasons. - Enough of principles now! Anything relevant to the subject is better discussed on the talk pages of the articles, not here. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vorbehaltlich der Kriterien für ein "gotisches Bauwerk" ist die (nicht ganz aber prinzipiell) vollständige Auflistung neutral. Entscheidungen für "wichtig" oder "typisch" können leicht subjektiv oder willkürlich ausfallen.

Zu POV gehört natürlich auch, dass Dehio und Much (sein Buchtitel "Backsteingotik – Ein Heimatbuch" lässt auf sehr viel POV schließen) anscheinend Backsteingotik so definiert haben, dass Flandern rausfallen sollte (Im damals erst kurz zurückliegenden 1. Weltkrieg hatten die Belgier weniger Sympathien für alldeutsche Ideen gezeigt als erhofft und die deutschen Truppen sich sehr deutlich als Feinde benommen).

Darum möchte ich in dem nördlichen großen Dreieck jede Sortierung nach größerer oder geringerer Ähnlichkeit zur "klassischen" Backsteingotik vermeiden. Für die südlichen Backsteinzonen gilt das Neutralitätsgebot nicht minder.--Ulamm (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only marginally interested in the subject and have edited the introduction to the list mainly to improve readability. You won't reach many interested people here on my user pages. As I wrote above, discussions of the perceived shortcomings of previous authors and other matters regarding the subject, including presenting your point of view regarding the same, should better be conducted on the talk pages of the articles themselves. Even better, try actively to find people knowledgeable in the subject field, but be clear about what you want to prove, and be prepared for counterarguments and critiques of your method. --Schlosser67 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled[edit]

Hi Schlosser67, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Schlosser67. 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]

European Science Foundation[edit]

Hi, you placed an "outdated" tag on the above article in July. I'm currently looking at some of these to see what can be done about them, and I got the impression that you know of some relevant information for the ESF article. Right now, it seems that if anybody is going to update this article, it's you. How about it? Samsara 07:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I tagged the article, IIRC because I meant to refer to it and noticed on that occasion that significant changes in the organization had occurred. The details, however, would need the attention of someone who actually works for or with ESF. --Schlosser67 (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plate frame[edit]

Hi Schlosser, I'm not sure changing "plate frame" to "sheet metal frame" is right. The former is a recognised English language railway term for a frame which may well be made of sheet steel, but it is not AFAIK called that. Please would you explain how your edit is reflected in the sources. Otherwise I'd be grateful if you reverted your changes. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I changed from "sheet metal frame" to "plate frame", as it should be, not the other way round. Mavbe you took the old versions of the articles for the new ones by accident? For the benefit of other readers: The German term "Blechrahmen" for the frames that were used e.g. in the post-WW II Reichsbahn locomotives may contain the word "Blech" which is often translated as "sheet metal", but the "sheets" are in fact plates since they exceed a certain thickness (usually set at 6 mm or 1/4 inch). See also the article on structural steel, and de:Blechrahmen. The latter cites a typical thickness of the material of 28 mm, which in English is "plate" while in German it is Grobblech. The earlier authors who wrote about "sheet metal frames" have apparently missed these distinctions. Hence my corrections. --Schlosser67 (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon post milestone[edit]

Hi Schlosser, thanks for your work on this article. I translated it from de.wiki and that article suggests both distance and timescales were used. They prolly got that from the Lexikon Kursächsische Postmeilensäulen which seems to be their main source. But I'm not going to buy it, even at the relatively cheap price of €15, to find out! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thuringian Forest[edit]

Hi Schlosser67, outstanding work on Thuringian Forest - well done! Nice to know I'm part of a wider team translating and expanding Germany articles. Bermicourt (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Fyling Hall railway station[edit]

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/f/fyling_hall/index.shtml. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To all who notice such issues: Please flag them, notify the writers, that's a highly commendable action, but give us time to respond and to improve the articles. Do not delete the content, because this makes fixing the problems more difficult. If you really cannot let a piece of text stand the way it is, I should recommend putting the disputed part into comment brackets. --Schlosser67 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Schlosser67. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Hi, just wanted to explain about further why I reverted your initial photo. The photo somehow wasn't uploaded properly, so it just showed up as a red-linked file as you can see here. Hope that helps explain it better. All the best, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 20:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see - that was only a formatting issue. The prefix "File:" was duplicated for some reason. If you come across a similar situation again, just delete these five characters, and it will work. But thanks for noticing the error! --Schlosser67 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm so sorry! Totally blanked and didn't see the extra "File:". You're welcome to put the old photo back of you like that one better. My apologies for the brain freeze on my part! Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 15:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Schlosser67. 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]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]