Welcome

Hello, KapHorn, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark

See Baruth

According to Beevor the hamlet at the crossroads is Mark, Baruth is slightly to the west of the crossroad. [1] Hope that helps. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Battle of Halbe‎ --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk pages of the article is were the article is discussed in depth. The talk pages of the policies and guidelines are where those issues are discussed. talking the Battle of Halbe as an example, if anyone else wishes to bring up the Mark issue then they can see at a glance that we have discussed this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hölle Valley

Hi Kaphorn. There has been much debate about how to translate German names and I do not have all the answers, but have given it some thought and research. There are 2 relevant Wiki rules: "Use English" and "Use the original if there is no established English usage". For proper nouns this would be easy except for one feature of German: the compound noun, where a proper noun and an ordinary noun are combined. Having looked at major dictionaries and tourist guides it is clear that there is no absolute answer, but the principles appear to be:

City, town and village names: , use the original full German word, unless there is an accepted English equivalent. Wuppertal, Munich.
Lakes and mountains: ditto. Ammersee, Zugspitze, Kreuzberg, Lake Constance.
Rivers: ditto. Aabach Main, Lech River, Rhine.
Valleys: split the word, do not translate the proper noun, unless it has an accepted English equipvalent, and render "tal" as "valley". Elbe valley, Moselle Valley. In the text it could also be rendered "valley of the Elbe".

Valleys seem to be different. For example you would never hear an English-speaker refer to the Rheintal or Maintal, he would say the Rhine valley or valley of the Main. I think it is because there is a separate entity, the river, which has a proper name and "tal" is a common word just added to it. Why the same doesn't apply to lakes and mountains, I don't know, but it may be because valley is always "-tal", but there are many variations of mountain name e.g "-spitze", "-berg", "-kuppe", "-horn". (I know, lake is nearly always "-see"!)

Having said all that there may be slight complication which is that a few valleys may not be named after a river. I am happy about the Hölle Valley in Franconia because there is a village called Hölle, so it must be named after this. But I am not so confident about the others. I certainly wouldn't agree with "Hell Valley" as a title because the proper noun "Hölle" should not be translated.HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're concluding that it's okay to use xxx Valley where there is a river xxx, and I am beginning to share your doubt about Hölle Valley where there is no river of that name. I have not seen Hölle Valley used in an English reference (just Höllental valley which is a tautology!). However it is standard practice in e.g. the respected Michelin Guide to use xxx Valley, so I was simply extending that practice to lesser known valleys, maybe wrongly in this case.

By accepted English equivalent, I meant the English name for the geographical feature. Of course we can often "translate" place names e.g. "Karlsruhe" = "Charles' rest", but I wouldn't propose that!

HTH = hope this helps!

I have raised the above for discussion on the Germany/Conventions page, so everyone can have their say. Gruß, Paul. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smith River

Hi - The other New Hampshire Smith River, while not found in the Geographic Names Information System and therefore not on any topographic map, is in the town of Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. (See Smith River Canoe Race, for example.) It's a very short connecting stream between Lake Wentworth and Lake Winnipesaukee -- short, but large enough to run canoes and kayaks down it every spring. For that reason, I'm not inclined to change the article name for the Smith River that flows into the Pemi.

You'll find that there are many other rivers in Wikipedia with the same naming convention, where the river's outlet is in parentheses. I agree that the convention may lead some people to briefly think that the name in parentheses is an alternate name, but I think that overall that particular problem is very minor. But thanks for bringing it up. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STOP

[[2]] seems weird - not your the bot, necessarily, but it does seem like it? --G-41614 (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically - no chance. "prev edit" showswhat the bot did. And the bot edit as a month ago.Rich Farmbrough, 13:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hers is the vandal's contribs. Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ptbotgourou

Dear G-41614, the only method I know to prevent this and also to stop my/all bots to put incorrect wikilinks is to search which wikipedia contains the error and then to uniformize "handly" the links. So I presume that the english article shouldn't be linked with the french and the german ones so I remove the link thta point from english article to the french one. Sincerely--GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 10:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I should often manage with this type of "errors". Interwikis Bots couldn't understood that two articles doesn't concern the same thing. They only follow links, corrects or incorrects ones. But I couldn't add all articles in my watchlist, I have already more than 6000 articles on french wikipedia because I mange a complete portal... Sincerely --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 10:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Großer Wannsee has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Höllentalbahn

Thanks, I'm not sure when that would be. I have no opinion on naming of the Höllentalbahn in English as I don't speak German. This was really a matter of how to apply the convention which you should take up with Bermicourt. I can image that in the past narrow dark wet valleys could have been regarded as hell valleys, if this is what you are saying.--Grahame (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ermisch

Hello G-41614. Thank you for writing this article! As for the formatting, could you be more specific, please? Do you mean the format of images or the format of references? I'll gladly help you to fix anything. Cheers. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't like the images small like a post stamps, as they are supposed to illustrate the architect's work, and the resolution should be bigger, in my opinion. You can use the Template:Infobox architect, I think that is the correct one. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's up to you, if it works as you like, and looks acceptable, then I have no objections :) Keep up the good work. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin

Muss ich gleich mal gucken, wahrscheinlich Schrott vom Kopieren. Grüsse aus dem richtig fernen Osten.BsBsBs (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wo warn das? Hastes weggemacht? BsBsBs (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, is wech. Wollte eine Referenz einbauen, wurde bloss Schmutz draus! Warum, wieso, keine Ahnung.BsBsBs (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Schwanenwerder

On May 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Schwanenwerder, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK v. England

Hi G-41614, happy to help, but I'm not sure what the context is? UK is the country i.e. 'sovereign nation-state'; England is a political and geographical sub-division within it. But I'm not sure that's what you're getting at. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see. Well in the mining article either England or United Kingdom is strictly correct, the question is which sounds better? I would prefer England but can't easily explain why. Perhaps United Kingdom sound more like a political name to me. Don't know. And most English-speakers know where England is - it's not obscure! I don't know of a Wiki convention, except that where there are two equally valid options (usually US or British English spellings/words), we should go with the original author. Pram is a good example. It's more a British term, but as this was the original word, we should not change it to an American one without good cause.

I also have the view that when writing about American places we should use US terminology, but when writing about European subjects we should use British English. Why? Because 1) European countries are part of the EU which has (British) English as one of its official languages and 2) Europeans are more likely to use and be familiar with British English. However that is not a Wiki rule! Gruß. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. Actually I'm not sure that AE is more widely used that BE. Americans like to think so simply because the USA is four times more populous than the UK. However 'British' English is not just used in the UK, but by many other countries around the world. Some, like Australia I think, use a mixture. BE is especially used by countries where English is not the main language but is a business language, e.g. India where the railways use BE in official documents. Also there are international bodies like the EU and International Union of Railways that de facto use BE terminology. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - the situation is much more complicated than any simple rules can convey. AE terms do creep into BE and become BE. Possibly vice-versa at times. What you heard was colloquial or slang spoken English which should not normally appear on Wikipedia! Good job he didn't speak in Cockney Rhyming Slang - even more confusing - but again not used in written English. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why change England to United Kingdom?

Hi, I don't see what the issue is, it's in England and therefore it's in the United Kingdom, UK is more official and more formal. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2001hi (talk • contribs) 10:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a German who lived most of his life abroad, I received some training in the use of "UK." As Germans, we need to be careful. We use "England" when we refer to what is considered the United Kingdom, we call its citizens "Engländer." They object. Likewise, we call The Netherlands "Holland" and its citizens "Holländer." When we do that in "Holland," we are either sneered at or reminded of the fact that Holland is a part of the Netherlands. Just like the Brits will remind us that England is a part of the United Kingdom. If you refer to the whole thing, use UK. If you know that a place is in England, use England. If in doubt, use UK, technically, you can't go wrong. However, the closer you get to a place, the pickier people get. "Leeds, UK" will work in Chicago, in Leeds it will get you raised eyebrows, the people from Leeds prefer "Leeds, West Yorkshire, England." Are we confused yet? --BsBsBs (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just occasionally. I'm under the impression that people living in the area geographically known as the British Isles can be a bit touchy topics of being english, England vs. UK (or vice versa), and related issues. Personally, I'd be careful not to suggest to someone from Scotland that he's english (far as I understand the issue, he's not), and I don't think the UK, Britain and England are identical. Dunno about Netherlands vs. Holland - almost never been there. But since the whole thing was about a change in a picture caption, that was reverted, then re-reverted, and far as I can tell now seems to have found it's solution, for now this is taken care of. Far as I'm concerned. Knowing there might be disagreements, I was just wondering if the involved were passionate enough to ew over it. Appearently not - all the better. --G-41614 (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. Greetings from Beijing. --BsBsBs (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shipwrecks

Re your message, the answer is no. There are probably many such instances on that list. Not really a huge problem unless there was a ship with that name too and and article gets created on a steamship or motor vessel with the same name at the wrong title. Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skype

You might note that at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ig Nobel Prize, also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you.--Rumping (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx for pointing something out. Not that I have the foggiest what you might be talking about. I don't intend to be rude, but since I merely reverted what I assumed to be a vandalism, I do not claim responsibility for introducing that part - just for restoring it. Didn't even notice the skype-thingamagummy. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The combined effect of the anon's edit and your undoing it can be seen at [3]. The Skype text seems to have arrived during your edit. It is typically caused by people that (a) use Firefox and (b) have a Skype add-in which highlights telephone numbers. You may also have seen a warning contained at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-skype which suggests how to avoid the problem in future. If you don't have Firefox or Skype then I apologise. --Rumping (talk)

No need to apologize in any case. I use Firefox, but have no idea at all about the Skype-stuff beyond the existence of something called Skype. Seems there is Skype at one of the stations I occasionally use, but since it's a public station, nothing I can do about it. Thnx again for pointing out a potential disturbance. --G-41614 (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Mulheim

I've reverted your copy & paste move. Per the discussion at WT:SHIPS#Names of foreign ships, it was decided that the ü in the name was to be presented as a "u" per WP:USEENGLISH. The redirect with the ü is an acceptable method for readers from Europe who may search using letters with diacritics. Mjroots (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the talk page you created on the ü page, and fixed the link on the log. I'll leave you to sort out the others, although the ship launche and shipwreck having redirected links isn't a big deal. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that wasn't a discussion, that was a short POV-exchange. More at talk. --G-41614 (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means put in a move request, but copy-paste moves are not permitted as the page history is lost. We need to keep the page history for attribution purposes. My opinion on this issue is based on the photo of the ship which appears to show that her name was changed from Mülheim to Mulheim at some point - both dots being rust while the u is white. As I said, I've got nothing against diacritics being used myself where verifiable. Only this morning I created SS Söderhamn. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piping to avoid redirects

Thanks for your efforts to improve List of shipwrecks. However, there's no reason to use a pipe just to avoid a redirect, and it may bring disadvantages if you do. There's a good description of this at WP:NOTBROKEN, if you're interested. In this case (a foreign spelling), it's no big deal, but I thought you might want to be aware of the issue for the future. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am mistaken...

but aren't newly-created cross-namespace redirects supposed to be deleted (hence why I tagged Micro Art Studio for speedy deletion)? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's been deleted anyways. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Kaufmann

Nice start, but needs a copyedit and wikifying / date delinking. Also need to add in the plane crash he was involved in - 2010 Berlin Air Services DC-3 crash. Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MV Derbyshire

I removed the "freak wave" bit of the MV Derbyshire entry on the List of shipwrecks article, as it had no citation at all. I just read through the article MV Derbyshire and found no mention of a "freak wave" as the cause of the ship's sinking. Asher196 (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. When you recently edited Cherry Street Lift Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Peck

Hi G-41613, interesting article on John Peck. I noticed one typo that I can't fix, and one possible typo. You have her burthen as "20 to 20 tons". Also, you state that his "plans later on were close to intellegible". Did you mean "unintelligible"? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Acad Ronin:I most certainly did. And to think I had the word there in the source right in front of my eyes ... the Minerva was described as being of 20 - 30 tons, corrected that as well. Thnx for letting me know somebody read that thing! :) --G-41614 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about New Hampshire Townships, status

Hi User:G-41614 -- I just cleaned up my reply to you on my talk page, so hopefully it's a bit more useful. I'm out of practice on my wikimarkup! -- best, BCorr|Брайен 13:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G-41614 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but afaik this host or IP is not a web host. The IP address is, to the best of my knowledge, 84.170.155.244. Sidenote: I'm logged in, yet blocked? That (beep) ... well, that's interesting. By the way, the description of the location of Yassi Ada doesn't match the coordinates given. Regards, G-41614 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That Ip address is not blocked. Once you stop using a proxy/vpn, note that it takes a full 24 hours for the block to clear. Yamla (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, thank you for your troubles, I appreciate that. Sort of. Because, well, what's that supposed to be? Short, poignant version: Wtf?!? Long version, still quite offended: First I'm being notified I'm being blocked, then I'm being threatened for an allegedly disruptive unblock-request - what'd the en:WP expect when telling people they're blocked? I was trying to edit for the first time in months at least, so I have no idea how that proxy or vpn might play a role except as far as I know, I never used one, so I can't stop using them and wait 24 hours. Which makes all those nice, rude threats about disruptive allegedly fake unblock-requests quite pointless. I think I might see a related point in connection with that proxy/vpn-stuff, but other than that, how about not putting up disruptive, fake block-notifications? Just to keep the conversation in the nice, civilized tone I seem to see here, which is quite disturbing as so far, one aspect about the en:WP was the polite, friendly manner of dealing with each other here. If anyone got this far in my rant, I'd really appreciate some explanation as to what went wrong. Just don't tell me I did something I didn't again. Or accuse me of vandalizing. That's just rude. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]