User talk:Carlotm

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

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

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

Romanesque secular and domestic architecture
Thank you for putting the pics into galleries.

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

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

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


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

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


 * As for the mysteries of the MOS, don't ask me!  I am not going to argue with people about something like Title Case. Even the titles of articles are in sentence case....    I don't know why.


 * I am currently fiddly with List of regional characteristics of Romanesque churches. You might want to take a look in an hour or so.
 * Happy editing!
 * Amandajm (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Lastly, the existing format on these glossary articles is to wiki link the defined term, if an associated article exists. This is because these definitions are not a substitute for in-depth articles, and the glossaries act as navigation pages, of sorts. Please don't remove those wiki links (as you did for Green Goat). Thanks, and happy editing! – voidxor (talk &#124; contrib) 17:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Manstein
Thank you for your comment on the Wehrmachtbericht discussion that I started—I had a good laugh! On a more serious note, I agree that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of primary sourced material. Publishing contemporaneous documents for the reader to parse and interpret is inviting them to do OR, which is not a purpose of an encyclopedia. That's what the archives are for. In any case, thank you again and happy editing! K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman, thanks for your words. Carlotm (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Award?
In re this edit in Otto Wöhler, do you happen to have a source? I've posted in Talk:Wehrmachtbericht—Military commendation?, but did not get any comments. If there's a source that provides some commentary on the status of these mentions, that would be very helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman, I must thank you for having excited my interest, and exposed my fallacy. Look here. Cheers. Carlotm (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Similarly : why would you pipe to something English when our article is in German? Why capitalize "congregation", which is no name? - Do me a favour: don't make so many changes in one edit, - I'd like to keep what's good and not summarily revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The page had many errors and broken links in References. By correcting these errors and links I made also some changes which do not affect the outcome but are useful for saving bytes. If inadvertently I did some mistakes, please let me know, and I will correct them. I suggest not to revert the page to the preceding error full condition.
 * The reason of my minimal ce lay in trying to reduce an awkward construction like "for it so serve as" or a too extreme assertion like "The paintings form part of the architecture". I tried also to reduce German wordings, which are difficult to understand and properly pronounce by an English speaking readership. But I may be wrong. As per the "picture gallery" I removed, the reason is that there is no picture gallery in the linked webpage but only two pictures. Carlotm (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining. The phrasing changes are fine. Let's break things up a bit, and - as said aboe - please do the same when editing: one edit for changing references, another for phrasing, another for German terms. Clarity is an objective that - for me - is of higher value than "saving bytes". Please explain what cite error means for you?


 * Now let's look at the first diff:


 * I see no reason to change reference format, and it should be consistent in the article.
 * I see no reason to change labels of refs. They are purely internal.
 * I see no reason to change from a readable ref style with one line per item to all continuously, thinking of the future editor. The byte "new line" doesn't take more storage than a space.


 * Now the second, with the same questions and additionally:
 * Why would you pipe to something English when our article is in German?
 * Why capitalize "congregation", which is no name?
 * Why remove the sentence about the pictures forming part of the architecture which was requested in the GA review?


 * --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my sense of clarity may differ from yours. I am also sad that you don't appreciate my "saving bytes", which I consider a very high objective. But, you know, we all are equal and in the same time different. If you open St. Martin, Idstein's penultimate revision, and go down to "References" you'll see seven errors, quite visible being in red (one in Unionskirche, Idstein). Plus dead links, of which there may be some mnore; I didn't a through and through check.
 * Reference format
 * The format didn't change: I maintained named references. I just shifted from Wiki murkup mode to template mode. Is there a difference between, say,  (which is equivalent to  ) and  . One is the tracking category. Another is the striping, although the effect is subtle and can be hard to see on some screens. A key point is looking at the HTML source which includes "_ODDEVEN_" markers when a child navbox has no parent. The version at 09:00, 15 April 2017 has no tracking category or _ODDEVEN_, but it does stripe alternate rows. By contrast, the version at 09:20, 15 April 2017 displays the tracking category and has _ODDEVEN_ in the HTML source, and does not stripe alternate rows. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanations. Carlotm (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed Trygve Gulbranssen from the Nazi list
Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, be a bit more explicit. Carlotm (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Pittoni
Hi. There is absolutely no requirement that articles use citation templates, as long as he citations are uniform in some other way. I dont object to you formatting the citation to your preference (though I find citation templates rather ough on the eyes and cumbersome when editing the text, I will use them in articles that already use them, as a courtesy); however, if youre adding your own format, if this your contribution to the article, please consider formatting all citations. Picking a random group and leaving them like that is not an improvement, no matter how you feel about the superiority of templates; it also sends the message that you expect other editors to finish the job for you. Dahn (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I didn't change the citation style, which was a mix of short and long citations (with and without templates), and still is. I simply added links connecting short to their long citations, which is a boon, and a must I would add, in a web-based encyclopedia like Wikipedia. To do that I necessarily use templates, which, inter alia, facilitate my job, given the color code of my edit page. It seems you didn't notice that I was doing just what you requested; in fact, starting from the top I was adding links, so to make all short citations looking the same. However I cannot be as fast as you seem to pretend. BTW the message that I "expect other editors to finish the job", is absolutely not a bad message in this collaborative enterprise.


 * Now I feel like a dog on a very short leash; so my lord and master, tell me what have I to do: to revert you for the second time and continue my efforts, or to abandon definitely Pittoni's page, being so unwelcomed? Carlotm (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes you did, you added citation templates, which change the format used for the reference, and you only did this for a random number of citations; the connections had that effect, and created a discrepancy with the other citations. Plus, you didn't even do that for all short citations. This means that you simply selected a number of citations to add your improvements, and then got bored -- let someone else do the rest. As long as you created an inconsistency, it was not an improvement. If you feel that it must be done (which I dont), please do it consistently -- take all the time you need, sandbox it if it helps, but when you decide to copyedit, edit it through. Or leave it as it was. Otherwise, it means "I expect someone else to do the rest for me" -- when all the editors before you were comfortable with the old format. Dahn (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Il disprezzo
It's a while since I read the book, but I wonder if your recent amendment rather misses the point? While the merits of the films for which Riccardo writes and of the producers who pay him to write them may indeed be dubious, isn't the crucial thing that he feels contempt for the work he does, contempt for the people he works for, and above all contempt for himself at being stuck in this bind? His wife can't miss this contempt that he has turned in on himself and in turn begins to feel contempt for him. Clifford Mill (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , yes, it would have been more to the point if I had put "producers" instead of "productions", or, instead of "distasteful film productions", "film producers he despises". Carlotm (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!
 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! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

national memorial day
Where did you first see the picture of the Memorial Day article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by پخش مطلب (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your question is misplaced. Carlotm (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Source image of this article?--پخش مطلب (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you need to know the source of that image, just go to that image page in Wikimedia Commons and consult the information stored there. Carlotm (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I need to know the date of the concert in the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by پخش مطلب (talk • contribs) 14:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Generalplan Ost
Your edits removed the sources that supported the text in the leade. I restored them. I would appreciate if you could check the consequences of your edits. Also foreign language sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, I use them all the time. Anyway people have Google translate. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do mistakes, not here though where the mistake is all on your side. I didn't "removed the sources that supported the text in the leade". I simply consolidated a duplicated source in one only spot, and removed one reference. Two references to the same source every two lines of text seem to me unnecessary, but if you really deemed indispensable this over-referencing, you could have added a named reference, instead of duplicating, again, the source. In this sense your "restoration" has degraded the quality of the lede. "I would appreciate if you could check the consequences of your " reversions. I suggest also that you move this section to the Generalplan Ost talk page where other editors could be heard. Regards. Carlotm (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That is wrong the source supports the text " German government's plan for the genocide and ethnic cleansing on a vast scale. It is not a duplication, please do not remove the source that supports the edit, thank you. I suspect that you cannot read German properly.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There are two separate sources, not one.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I fixed this mess, both sources are posted there now. Somehow somebody deleted Dietrich Eichholtz and mislabeled the source from the Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, Dietrich Eichholtz. I guess the problem is that the editors cannot read German--Woogie10w (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Now the three refs in the leade are cleaned up, be my guest and reformat them but please do not delete them, they are unique items. I do not know how to use the format routine that you are using. --Woogie10w (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not talking right. After my original changes the lede had the underneath sources, which (excepting format and quality of info) are exactly the same one can read in the current page, after your innumerable mess and tentative adjustments. So if you want, I may amend your bungles, but you need only to say "I am sorry".
 * "Wissenschaft, Planung, Vertreibung - Der Generalplan Ost der Nationalsozialisten". Eine Ausstellung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (in German). 2006.
 * Eichholtz, Dietrich (September 2004). "»Generalplan Ost« zur Versklavung osteuropäischer Völker" [Generalplan Ost for the enslavment of East European peoples] (downloadable PDF). Utopie Kreativ (in German). 167: 800–8 – via Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.
 * Stephenson, Jill (2006). Hitler's Home Front: Wurttemberg Under the Nazis. Hambledon Continuum. p. 113. ISBN 1-85285-442-1. Other non-'Aryans' included Slavs, Blacks and Roma and Sinti (Romanies), although some of these last were classed as 'racially pure'.
 * "Generalplan Ost (General Plan East). The Nazi evolution in German foreign policy. Documentary sources". World Future Fund.
 * Carlotm (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Look, I do not have have to say I am sorry. I took the time to fix the mess in the lede that I did not make in the first place. Now the lede sources are OK, not duplicated and properly labeled.--Woogie10w (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I say goodbye to you, and, most regrettably, to Wikipedia. Carlotm (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Carlotm, please stay on Wikipedia. You are doing a lot of good work on fixing refs. Take a few days off and please come back. Peace.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Julius Streicher
Please do not change the reference sub-sections and the TOC again, as your solution is not the best one possible, since it suppresses other hierarchical sub-sections as well as those in the References section, which have no need to be hierarchical at all. I ask you to believe that with almost 13 years experience and about 220,000 edits, I actually do know what I'm doing. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no other hierarchical sub-sections, and likely will not appear in the future. But if they do, it will be that editor's business to solve the question. So your explanation is void. And, please, do not litter my page with your devastating complacency. Thanks. Carlotm (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

WP Phoenicia
~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 10:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Gudimallam, now Gudimallam Lingam
This edit is a complete and shameless breach of WP:CITEVAR, which I have had to revert, also losing several subsequent edits by User:Ms Sarah Welch. You MUST NOT DO THIS. Johnbod (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Too kind. Too kind. Carlotm (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Nazi personnel who resisted the Holocaust
You may be interested in the discussion at Category talk:Nazi personnel who resisted the Holocaust. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Citebanditry
Read WP:CITEVAR, and follow it! It is NOT OK to just do a drive-by conversion to the citation style of your preference, as you did at International Gothic. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see I've already had to complain about this to you before above, as have others. Johnbod (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod. I am currently unable to reply to your remarks. I may later. Carlotm (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

February 2024
Hello, I'm Ifly6. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Gaius Marius have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Ifly6 (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)