User talk:Matthiasb

Hello, Matthiasb-DE! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | watch Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | watch

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the invitation, but I am rather doing it the other way... I am a regular contributor to the German WP. However I put both pages on my watch list so I can help if some questions are raised. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid activity to do with that project anyway, but I'll try to explain the missing maps. The main reason is that the easiest data source for that basin stopped producing the data sometime during last year. Without that info producing the tracks became much harder, but not impossible, and at a degraded quality. It will be easiest to wait until the JTWC updates its information for 2007. Given the relative difficulty, non-urgency and me trying to avoid that project here on en, I have little inclination do touch this until the update occurs. That should be in a couple of months. I'd note your concern has come up a few times before (most recently here. Unfortunately no-one in the project, who can run the track program, seems to care about anywhere except the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific - the American regions.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that something like that is the reason. Thanks for answering. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I use a LexisNexis, a newspaper archive, through my school, meaning there are no links available. I'm not sure what is the best solution. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This comment is on your page and on mine. Well, for all of the sources, it also provides the title, which narrows down the hundreds of reports to the one in specific I was using for the article. LexisNexis works by showing a list of articles by a specific search term. For Alberto, I typed in Alberto and limited it by dates. Then, I clicked on a story of interest. On the page, I don't see any ID. All that comes up is the publisher, the date it came out, the author, the title, the length, and then the story. For more recent storms, when we use AP stories from Yahoo News or such, we are usually able to find the same story by using the same title. Webcitation.org might be a good option for the future. I suppose you could copy over the LexisNexis references for the German translation, as the info is there. What do you plan on doing? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for noticing there was an error, for trying to fix it directly, and for informing me! It was supposed to be 30 feet. Fixed. doncram (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in responding to the note you left on my talk page. I have always thought that Pasadena had a sufficiently large number of RHPs to break it out as a separate page. doncram (talk · contribs) split them in the current article, with the intention, I believe, of fully splitting it into a separate list/article once it got filled out a bit more. I do agree Pasadena should be a separate list/article, but have no opinion one way or the other as to whether it's best to do so now or to wait until it's filled in more. You may want to leave a note with Doncram (talk · contribs) about this.Cbl62 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember when, but National Register of Historic Places listings in Pasadena, California got split out eventually. Not sure of the context of the orignal discussion, but thanks for ur interest! --doncram (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's because the daily record is 3 orders of magnitude too low (too low by a factor of 1000)...the hourly rainfall record is over 1/2 an order of magnitude too low as well (by an order of 5-10). It should be meters, not millimeters, for the 24 hour rainfall record at Reunion. For a source, check out the NHC frequently asked questions link, and go to the tropical cyclone rainfall entry. The hourly rainfall record you mentioned looks way too low, for China or the United States. I believe the US 1-min rainfall record is 35-40 mm, set in Maryland in 1942. From the research I've done so far, the US one hour record for a TC, per here, is 154.4 mm/6.08 inches. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed someone at dewiki seems to have an interest in my work of late. I take it as a compliment.

This is probably unclear to you because it relies on American usage. To most Americans, a "creek" usually refers to a narrow watercourse that either drains into or eventually becomes a river. (In Britain, as the discussion on the talk page makes clear, a "creek" is the estuarine portion of a river, so you would expect a river to drain into a creek). Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You're doing good work. I know the definition of a creek, however I don't exactly understand the underlined part. Did it flow directly into the Hudson before the river was dammed? What has the Roundout Creek to do with it? It is rather a problem that someone who wasn't there cannot imagine what exactly is mentioned. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. The Wallkill drains into Rondout Creek, always has. The imoundment's only effect was to ensure that the Wallkill looks like a minor local creek where it drains into the Rondout rather than a mighty river. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I undid your edit to Talk:East Layton, Utah. I wanted to let you know that WikiProject Ghost towns covers all former settlements, not only ghost towns as such. Thanks, Ntsimp (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not a former settlement, it's still a settlement. Still there are serveral thousand people living there. The only difference is that nowadays it is not a city on its own but part of another city. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I quote from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ghost towns: "The project covers all articles about ghost towns and defunct settlements. This is to include any towns or municipalities which were absorbed by another entity." East Layton, Utah clearly fits the description. Ntsimp (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, please include Manhattan, Bronx and other neighbourhoods of larger cities as well. (The definition does not makes sense, IMHO. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the idea: East Layton used to be an independent municipality, but it no longer has any independent existence. It is a defunct city. The same is not true of the Five Boroughs, which are municipal corporations in their own right. Ntsimp (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! It would be great to have u on board :) doncram (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, glad you decided to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites. Hey, I wonder if you might comment in the discussion section about the heritage register in Switzerland? The relevant Swiss webpages are in German, which I don't speak myself. Anyhow, please feel free to describe what tasks you think the wikiproject should take on, and otherwise join the Talk at wt:HSITES. Welcome, bien venu, wilkommen!

By the way, please note: Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Wyoming#Liste der National Historic Landmarks in Wyoming. doncram (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The clearance was on the first level of the span on the alignment of the 2nd level.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you'd translated my article on U.S. Department of Agriculture Administration Building to German, and was wondering if you'd consider doing the reverse for Georg Moller. He has an article on wiki-de, and I've noted his influence on James Renwick, Jr.'s work on the Smithsonian Institution Building, but he's a redlink who clearly deserves an article on wiki-en. Thanks for the good translation work you've been doing! Acroterion _(talk) 18:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I could try that but obviously it would be a raw version, which has to be corrected by someone who understands English properly. ;-) Give me a week or so, I will contact you when ready. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I can certainly proofread it for English, as long as the basic content's there. Feel free to condense where necessary, or when in doubt. Acroterion _(talk) 11:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a good part down with the translation process, however will be out of town for some days with only some sporadic internet access. You could help and provide the wikilinks, if any, to the buildings and persons mentioned in the German article. In that case just drop them here, I will fetch 'em. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help out in any way that I can; I appreciate your efforts. Sadly, my German is only sufficient to order dinner without mortally insulting anyone. If you put your work so far in a sandbox, I can have a go at doing the linking directly, otherwise I'll see what I can discern from the dewiki article and leave the links here. Acroterion _(talk) 14:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Translated to User:Matthiasb/Georg Moller (Due to R/L it took me more time than I expected). I kept all names of persons, buildings and geographic objects (with some exceptions) in German since I am not familiar with the EN:WP:MOS and naming conventions, dealing with that is on you :-). However please also look out for my notorious mistakes in the English language which may include mixing up adjectives and adverbs, messing simple past and present perfect and alike, confusing British and American spelling, filling in c's in words like English (may result in Englisch) and similar errors with words which are spelled in the both languages very similarily, even if they have a different meaning, e.g. become vs. bekommen (what actually is to get). I also inserted some hidden comments into the text which should be deleted before moving the article. Feel free to ask back about some wording I used (or kept in German). The descriptions for the images are as follows:

• File:Ludwigsmonument-3.jpg|Ludwig monument in Darmstadt
• File:Opper-darmstadt-ludwigskirche1.jpg|St. Ludwig Church in Darmstadt
• File:Wiesbaden Hessische Landtag.jpg|Town castle in Wiesbaden
• File:Mainz staatstheater 1903.jpg|State theatre in Mainz

but I am not sure wether the structure's names should be translated at all. Maybe some of them have already articles in the EN:WP, so those names should be used. Also to do is sorting the article in categories, after moving. If you're ready with the corrections feel free to move the article. Have a nice day. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you've done the hard part (at least as far as I'm concerned). I'll track down all the links and turn them from red to blue before I move it into article space. I really appreciate your help. Acroterion _(talk) 13:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

One question: how do you incorporate the editing history when you do a cross-wiki move like this? I see the history at the bottom of the article - what do I need to do to have it show up when I move it? Acroterion _(talk) 14:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. The WP:IMPORTER function is disabled on en.wiki. It'll have to be a cut/paste with appropriate attribution in the first edit summary. de.wiki always gets the good stuff first! Acroterion _(talk) 21:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I included this into the first edit, a simple move should now be enough. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If I move it into article space, how would the de.wiki history appear as history, rather than an appendage to the article? Acroterion _(talk) 18:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe yo can ask a wise administrator, since I don't know how the EN:WP usually handles such things. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Asked somebody. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm an administrator, but not wise on this topic. WP:IMPORTER doesn't work here, though, so I think I'll just place it in article space and credit you and de.wiki appropriately in the subject line. I'll ask around at the Village Pump to see why it's disabled here. Acroterion _(talk) 13:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I got the information, that the import version is disabled in EN, but no answer why but stewarts theoretically could do it. However maybe the information at Wikipedia:Transwiki log could help you. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I just finished a short one, Benner House. Since its distinctiveness comes from it being built by German immigrants to the Hudson Valley rather than Dutch, and it retains a one-room plan, I think that it would be an excellent addition to the German Wikipedia. (Besides, someone there will request it anyway). Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I fetched the text today and will this do in the next few days. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Did that x-lation, yet maybe have to correct one detail: Did you mean oblique concerning the intersection of US 9 and Mill St. in the sense of dangerous/treachurous or as in diagonal? And, since you certainly studied the sources more exact than me (I actually checked only if the link works), can you determine where exactly Benner came from, so we might include this information into the settlement's article? --Matthiasb (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I meant oblique in the sense of a sharp diagonal. I will look over the application, which I think mentioned something about where the Benner family came from but not Johannes specifically. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Never though these two little schoolhouses would be translated to German. I guess it makes sense though since the town was settled by German immigrants. Thanks for the help! wadester16 17:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the NRHP project in DE:WP is small (consists officially of about two users), so we do what we can. Actually I try to translate every DYK-HRHP article. Thanks. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there is a problem with the image you added to the article. Is it at the correct title? Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems, that the bot which is transferring it from Flickr is a bit slow today, the file should appear at c:File:2008 Viareggion Train explosion fire.jpg, maybe so far comment it out. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Duh, my mistake. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's showing now :) Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... I wish it would be so easy to fix that article, but it would require some extended effort and sources I don't have handy at the moment. Plus I have other articles to create. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice job! (belated) Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Now restored. Acroterion _(talk) 23:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that the hicking of the commons will be over now for some time. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One side of the skylight is curved. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those sections are sort of crufty. Probably added by some well-meaning, inexperienced newbie (Didn't know we had a Hopper House pic, though ... have to add it to the county list page). Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the information in the historic district article is sourced and that one isn't (I suspect it's vandalism ... there was no National Guard then, nor even any remotely analogous entity). But do email the village historian ... he wrote that application when he was younger, and wrote the one for the cemetery as well (speaking of which, I should email him the link for his review). Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it really looks like vandalism. I'll remove it (Another minor embarassment during fundraising season :-() Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And you didn't even have to do the translation :-) Thanks for letting me know! Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Go right ahead.Jason Rees (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! for your comment] at wt:NRHP. I really appreciate the different perspective that you can provide, speaking from the German wikipedia. In this case, it seems refreshing and helpful that u can point out that the DE wikipedia allows for all-red-link disambiguation pages, while in fact in the EN wikipedia my understanding is that at least one primary bluelink is required, no matter how obvious it is that several items are obviously wikipedia-notable. The DE way seems better, IMHO! Thanks, i may refer elsewhere to your comment. Cheers --doncram (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Duh, you don't know what happens all the time on the AfD request discussions pages. ;-) In fact there is some discussions about red link dab's from time to time but they get "fasty-kept" mostly, especially if the entires on it are notable per se as are in the German WP for instance geographical subjects, monuments, generals, and some more. However redlinks sh/could be removed when they're unsourced (i.e.: at least a link/explanation in the edit summary should make clear that the redlinked item exists), though this is a rather unwritten rule. Greetings. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done what you asked. As far as Google Maps — is that really sourceable? I would guess that it's reliable, but I don't see how you can possibly cite it. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I often cite maps; it's specifically Google Maps that I mean. For one thing, it appears to be wrong rather often; and for another thing, I don't know how we'd cite it. Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Matthias – thanks for your note; I have now added the missing items to the Bibliography. Thanks for doing the translations on to DE:wiki; very interesting to see e.g. Grade I listed buildings in Brighton and Hove in German! Tschüß, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just remember that only a small amount of people work on the current Season articles, and with 100+ storms each year we cant keep evreything upto date.Jason Rees (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that – it's me who does all other basins than the Atlantic in the DE:WP almost alone (what is pretty frustrating especially when due to lack of manpower those articles have mainly to be done as translations but the source from where one wants to translate isn't up to date). :( --Matthiasb (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dont worry about Imani having a U number - TCWC Perth have done a lot worse, with Cyclone Hina last year receiving one despite it going nowhere near Aus.Jason Rees (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I rather was confused about the messing up of east an west in the text... actually for us Germans it is a bit better to distinguish... West and East translates Westen und Osten and as the leading lettes W-O compose the word wo (as in where) it's clear that the West is left and the East is right, at least if you're looking North :) well, fixed that but put in loads of bad spelling and grammar I fear. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, just ignore it ... I haven't heard of it outside of that application, either, and it may well be a brand name in there only because the writer of the application had gone to great lengths in his research and wanted to make sure he didn't waste the effort. Daniel Case (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that sentence does make sense in English; however I'm not sure if it would translate in that form (I can imagine the experience of reading it for a nonnative speaker must be something like watching someone frantically move their arm around to keep a stack of plates and cups on it from falling :-). It was not vandalized; that's as I wrote it.

The fact I was attempting to impart was that settlement had begun in the area before the French and Indian War, but was limited due to the possibility of raids by French-backed Indians as the delineations between French and British colonies in the area were not exact and disputed, a situation not helped by the lack of European settlement at that time. The war settled it by ending French colonization of northern North America and putting everything under British control.

Therefore, with the French and Indian War over, settlement of what is now Washington County could begin. However, there wasn't much before the Revolutionary War began and its political uncertainties again put settlement on hold. So only after the war (and also after Vermont had given up its independence, joined the Union and settled its border with New York around 1792) could the Hartford area be settled.

Hope that makes sense. You may, I suspect, want to not follow my exact phrasing. Daniel Case (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

To do. --Matthiasb (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Matthiasb. You have new messages at Talk:2009–10 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season.
Message added 22:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jason Rees (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Voting has started here. Kingjeff (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you commented in the discussion of this topic at Talk:U.S. Post Office, please provide your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look at your last post on the WPTC page. Ive just corrected some of your spelling mistakes and it wouldn't surprise me if i have accidentally changed what you meant to say :)Jason Rees (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it seems just all right. Certainly me English gets better when I have drunk a good bottle of red wine... :D --Matthiasb (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

lolJason Rees (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, so I was wondering... why are you so annoyed over the article changes? We're talking about a title of a hurricane article on Wikipedia. Think about that. The title is as arbitrary as the storm names themselves. We could just as easily called it "September 2010 Veracruz hurricane", or "Atlantic Hurricane Thirteen", or something arbitrary. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter much, since the WPTC is such a niche group of Wikipedia. People in general don't care about hurricanes. I'd imagine that 95% of people come on Wikipedia for schoolwork, or for something pop-culture oriented. Those that might stumble across a hurricane article either do so by accident or because it's on the news. Most people find hurricanes boring. There's no need to get worked up over article titles. This is Wikipedia, not a job, not school, it's just volunteers who do it for fun! :) Hurricanehink (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I found it very helpful that actually only retired storm names have names w/o brackets (let's call the Indian Ocean cyclones "semi-retired" because of they're used only once per se and not dispute over them). I found that so helpful that I used that convention as well in the German WP when I created the naming conventions for tropical storms there. Personally I don't like that disambiguation type very much. As I said there's also a POV problem in that. There had been four Karls in the Atl and I am sure one could define criteria for each of them appearing the most important and likely the article readers are intending to see. 2010 was the worst in Vera Cruz, 2004 the most intense of them, 1980 the most intense of them at the time, you get the image?

BTW, "September 2010 Veracruz hurricane" or "Atlantic Hurricane Thirteen" would be original research since Atlantic hurricanes are going to be named for sixty years :D --Matthiasb (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I commented them out at the time i wrote it as the TCWC predictions were not out (bar Brisbanes). Either you can uncomment them out and expand them or i will get to it within the next couple of days before the season starts. :) Jason Rees (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - ill have a go at writing it after the twins Anggrek and Pre Jal have gone.Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Further to your question on the WPTC talkpage earlier, i thought this image might help you.Jason Rees (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at the WPTC project page. Ive proposed a new version of the seasonal effects graph which should remove your concerns about it being OR. Regards.Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Silly questions or not, bless you for adding a great source to this article! Ganz geil! :D Many thanks, Robster1983 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the first one ... one of those situations where I changed something but didn't get rid of all of what I was replacing. Sorry about that.

As for "stockyards", yes, it would have the meaning suggested by meat packing industry, of a place where animals (usually cattle) are kept prior to slaughter. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Test – finde ich hübsch, diese Miezekatze

Matthiasb (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I decided to go to my German-English dictionary for this one. Did you come up with Gericht? That's obviously not the use intended here. I couldn't look at the application to see if there was any indication as to what use might have been meant. I'm guessing that the use meant might correspond more to Hof in German, a word that doesn't seem to me to be used with much lexical independence. So it might sound a little weird ... I don't know. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What I'm thinking is the meaning of Hof suggested by its use to refer to a physical location, in a manner analogous to its use in Autohof in Germany to refer to what Americans call a service area, or the way "court" is used in food court or tennis court.

I will check the source again to see if it offers any clues. And to be honest, we're having a beautiful summer and I have no excuse not to do some of the things I've been meaning to, like get in touch with these places and ask if I can get a free tour in order to take pictures. Or at least ask if they can suggest an answer to this question. Daniel Case (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's good enough. I also had a chance to look at the separate NRHP and NHL applications. The former doesn't go into much detail about that particular building. The latter] does ... and it may solve the mystery. On p. 10 and 14 it refers to a Squash Court ... which, according to the dewiki article on Squash, is rendered in German as ... Squashcourt! Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On 4 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of historic places in Christchurch, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that one year ago today the 2010 Christchurch earthquake irreparably damaged much of the city's built heritage (example of a now-demolished building pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of historic places in Christchurch.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, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had been meaning to reply to your questions but never got around to it! If you are still interested ...

Administrative counties were replaced by the Local Government Act 1972 by counties in which services are provided by county councils. Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act provided that "For every county there shall be a council ... the council shall have all such functions as are vested in them by this Act or otherwise". Where counties have been entirely divided into unitary authorities different forms of words have been used to cancel this provision: e.g. The Cheshire (Structural Changes) Order 2008 states "the county of Cheshire shall be abolished as a local government area". In Berkshire's case the words used were "The County Council shall be wound up and dissolved". However, I think we may take it that all these forms of words have the same effect: both Cheshire and Berkshire remain counties but have no county councils. As far as I can tell they remain counties only for ceremonial purposes, being the units within which a particular Lord Lieutenant carries out his functions.

The Berkshire UAs have exactly the same functions as other UAs in non-metropolitan counties. London Boroughs and districts in metropolitan counties (West Midland, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Tyne & Wear, Greater Manchester & Merseyside) have been unitary-like authorities since 1985 but share more powers in joint working - see Unitary_authorities_of_England#Similar_authorities.

I hope this helps and doesn't just deepen the confusion!--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 21:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. It does both I think, helping and deeping. Helping in understanding what the government did and deeping the confusion how to put the categories (e.g. putting the Berkshire UAs together with all the other UAs or putting them into the Berkshire category and Berkshire together with all remaining counties. With other words, your input did enlighten us but made the problem even harder to resolve. ;-) Thank you indeed. --Matthiasb (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you shed some light on who FU berlin are and why they name.Jason Rees (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Freie Universität Berlin. For the latter, see European windstorm#Names. It seems that nowadays this "naming pattern" is used by many media outlets and national met services through middle Europe. It's not official outside Germany but widely accepted, a quasi standard. See f.ex. in France fr:Tempête Xynthia or fr:Tempête Lothar. --Matthiasb (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note for the Accumulated Cyclone Energy on the hurricane season pages...There has been a lot of discussion over how to convey ACE (especially on whether or not to mention individual storm totals) and the overall conclusion was to have storm-by-storm ACE during the season due to considerable page traffic and the interest in those numbers but remove them a few months later since those values are not actually used in a storm-by-storm fashion rather, they're meant for comparing seasons as a whole. Additionally, there is no reliable source that we can directly source the ACE values for individual storms whereas we can cite the NHC for the seasonal total. If you feel differently about this, please feel free to voice your thoughts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So let's throw them out at all. It's a waste of time, server space and spams version histories. Indeed, it does not make any sense at all to put it in during the season because of it changes every six hours. You might have seen, that in DE:WP we're including it only after the season. If it is not needed after the seasons, we don't need to prepare this during the season. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We tried removing it have a look through the 2011 AHS talkpage archives if your after a laugh about it.Jason Rees (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Did not not[ic]e that. Sorry if I stirred up a nest of hornets. ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep it looks like you have stirred up a hornets nest but meh.Jason Rees (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I clarified it to say that it's one of two armories in the city to be listed. Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Tropical Cyclones for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, 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
• 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 ^{t | c} 20:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not sure why you're so against using the regular Infobox hurricane for effects articles. As of now, there isn't anything new or different that would be included in the effects articles. The way I look at it, it's more like a hurricane article with a limited focus, unlike a completely separate article (like History of Atlanta versus Atlanta). I think an infobox is warranted in the effects articles, just like in the main articles, to easily summarize the damage, deaths, when the storm hit and with what strength. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You're harping way too much about the effects articles. The template isn't any different! There's no need to have a unique template. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If the template is the same then the content will be the same - I totally disagree with that. Effects articles provide detailed info on a hurricane's info in a certain area. I don't think the value in terms of how many articles it's used in really makes a difference. It's not like the effects template would include the exact same info as the regular hurricane one. For Katrina in Florida, for example, it has a satellite image of the storm hitting Florida, the damage just in Florida, the timing of when it affected Florida, whatnot. The main Katrina article has everything, so putting much focus on Florida would be just wrong, considering how non-important the impact was there compared to New Orleans. However, the impact in Florida was significant enough to warrant having the info somewhere. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You are forgetting that we do not have to plonk every parameter that infobox hurricane has into each article. For example: We wouldnt plonk 10-minute winds in to an article on a Atlantic hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, we don't always have info like whether evacuations occurred, number of power outages, insured damage, whatnot. I don't think you should speak for everyone when you say "Template:Infobox hurricane is not useful in effect articles". Instead of this turning into something heated (and rather lame), is there anything else you want different about the infobox hurricane effects? And, I should ask, why do you want those values? The infobox isn't supposed to contain everything. Overall damage and deaths are the most important values that should be in there, IMO, and I don't think it should be cluttered with other values. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

But the reason I'm harping on the redundancy is because I don't understand your position that "I just don't want the normal hurricane infobox used in the effects article because of that articles do not describe hurricanes." The effects articles most certainly do describe hurricanes. The Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Florida article also covers a bit of MH leading to its Florida landfall. The infobox has the effects in that location, the deaths and damage in whatever location that article is about. Why would an infobox for "Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Florida" include effects in New Orleans? It's not the same infobox as what's used in Katrina's article. It's a different one with limited info. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Im just wondering, how far back do you go back in the DE:Wiki for each basin?.Jason Rees (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally spoken I would say as long as reliable records are available. However, aside the Atlantic, since the tropics are almost a one-man show in DE, most articles are about 2000+ seasons. I chose a different format for the Atlantic "hurricane seasons" before the 19th century, see de:Atlantische Hurrikansaisons 1810–1819 which a user had translated from EN long ago but I converted it to "my" format a few days ago. IMO there had not been cyclone seasons in Australia before, wait, about 1970 or so. I did it like de:Zyklone in Australien vor 1970. Though typhoon data in Japan or China is reliable certainly for centuries I doubt that typhoon seasons before 1945 make sense but there could be a List of typhoons affecting Japan before 1945 resp. the same for China. NIO? 1990 maybe. SWI? 1960s I guess, though they might have good data from observatories on Reunion and Mauritius for more than a century. Before the advent of satellite it was all about ship reports and surface pressure analysis, eh?

I think it is eligibale, however, to write articles for specific storms, e.g. the Apia cyclone, the San Cyriaco hurricane or the Great Hurricane of 1780. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't know any source for the old Florida State University archives. Why not try writing to FSU Meteorology to see if they can help? webmaster@met.fsu.edu should reach them.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 19:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

hmm.... i have a few toughts on this matter, but will need a couple of hours to investigate your list further.Jason Rees (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I responded there the other night.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I saw it, thank you. I also was surprised to find out that the NHC's dynamic pages of advisories and forecasts sometimes get unavailable and some times not (and sometimes the links got reused). We have a bad attitude in DE not to take the 'archive'-Pages from the start. It's just so a mess. --Matthiasb (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like John Croke (died c.1600) which already has a specific stub template. Thanks. PamD 07:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually that was a test. The script should not add {{stub}} if one or more specific stub templates are already in place. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fährmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German Party (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) 12:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathias: I noticed your comment that "BTW: Having sex is not a scandal" please be advised that you are wrong in the case of US military personnel who can face court martial for having an extra-marital affair while on active duty, and of course for sexual harassment, which has happened. Petraeus knows this and that is why he is claiming that the affair was after he was out of the army and was working as a "civilian" as head of the CIA. You need to check your facts first. Also, the scandal is not about "Email" it is about the people who wrote those Emails and what those Emails are about: real sex not Email-sex. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither Petraeus nor Broadwell are on active duty. And where are the sources claiming that Broadwell's emails to Kelley are sexual harrassment? And no, the scandal is not the sex, the scandal is the FBI agent who was breaking into emails, very likely 'cause of being in love with Kelley. I guess you're the one who should check his facts first. You're welcome. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Tschüß Matthiasb (talk),
thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
I noticed that you removed the "==Worldwide reactions to the scandal==" section (with the

{{Expand section|date=November 2012}}

code attached) which I added @ 11:50 of the 14th November 2012.
You motivated that edit with:

"(...) removed redundant section title (also on wrong place in article), corr lead (...)".

Honestly I don't see anything "redundant" in that section.
If you are referring yourself to the "domestic section" IMHO that hasn't got much to do with a "worldwide section"... like, I dunno, are you assuming that the rest of the world had "no reaction" to what happened? You kinda surprised me, because if that's true that you are German as you state... I guess you should take for granted that German speakers must have developed some kind of "reaction" that not "necessarly" is the same as the "domestic" one... or not?
As for the "wrong place in the article" AFAICT I guess that was exactly the right place for it.
Anyway I am not really in the mood today for starting a WP:POV discussion on your change (maybe tomorrow after creating the sicilian article about it that I have in mind right now).
But in the future please consider in adding the name of the section in your comment that you are removing so that editors can easily find who undid changes with a "search" command using compatible keywords.

Danke schön

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you have a main section (i.e. with a H2 title) with nothing in it but the title "domestic" and directly following at same level the section title "worldwide" and in that some sub section titles on H3 level are following, beginning with the White House then obviously the "wordwide" section title is on the wrong place within the article.

Note also that after the section on the military reaction there was at the time the H2 section "International reactions to the scandal". IMHO "International reactions to the scandal" and "Worldwide reactions to the scandal" is pretty much the same hence redundancy.

Have a nice day. Matthiasb (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:John Patton Log Cabin.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you & frohes neues Jahr!--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 21:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think i can answer your question myself - Larry peaked 12 or so hours before it made landfall as a cat 5 on the Aus Scale, however it weakened just before landfall (12 hours later) to a cat 4. However we have to bear in mind that some Cat 5 wind gusts may off been observed onshore after it weakened since Davorak isnt exact. In fact its just like Cyclone Olivia holds the world record for wind gusts but isnt an Aus 5 probably because the winds were due to a meso-vortex or tornado and in some sense is unrelated to the strength of the cyclone.Jason Rees (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hang on are you trying to impose an Americanised scale (ie: SSHS) on to the people who are responsible for the Australian scale which also uses 1-5 but AFAIK uses 10 min/Gusts. I mean you wouldnt go to the NHC's website and read a report where it isnt clear what scale they are using and impose the Australian Scale on it would you? Anyway to be honest with you: Id like to see some evidence that they used Gusts primarily over 10-min winds in the past, as we all know that these days and in 2006 they used the Dvorak Technique to decide on both the 10-min and Gusts and thus the category, however AFAIK we are not supposed to be referring to the TCR's for the final intensity in any basin but to the various DB's on their websites, which in BoM's case is neatly tucked away as an excel spreadsheet on the Previous Tropical Cyclones page. In Larrys case the spreadsheet shows that Larry had 10-min windspeeds of 110 kts (COl:AX) but doesnt give any gusts (Col BA), which i would presume to be around 155 kts per this report.Jason Rees (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your TCR Map only gives positions every 24 hours which is why it shows it as being a 3 either side of landfall, However using the internet archive i have managed to track down the orginial report which leaves the landfall position blank of a cat but notes "just before crossing the coast, satellite picture interpretation techniques indicated that Larry had an estimated intensity of Category 5." During the next year after it has been BT'd they update the report with Updated report and issued this PDF, both of which include a map that shows that Larry was a 5 before landfall but made landfall as a 4. I might take a look at improving the articles MH over the next few days and bring it up to scratch.Jason Rees (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Lyons (Upper Canada politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Richardson (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) 11:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record: none of the Richardsons in the dp is the right one, there isn't any link so far, so linking the dp was fully intended. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your translation and the additional information which I have now translated back into english, much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt r baker (talk • contribs) 09:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

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} 15:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matthiasab, We have no option but to include what you are calling "SPAC Stuff" within the Aus region, due to them being valid for the South Pacific Ocean as a whole rather than just what we call the SPAC Basin based on RSMC Nadi's AOR. Thanks for the message/heads up about the citations, it doesn't surprise me and ill get them sorted later. Also there will be another seasonal forecast added in when the GCACIC/CityUHK get round to issuing theirs. Regards.Jason Rees (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello!

I saw that you were once involved on Wikimedia commons by reverting back a wrong map about South Asia in 2013. A certain user had uploaded a map about South Asia (orthographic) which included the definition of the UNSD, one single department of the many UN departments, a definition only for statistical purposes and only employed by the UNSD themselves. obvious bogus pov pushing of course that was That stuff is solved since long right now however there's another thing;

As of yesterday I tried to contact the uploader of these two maps connected to the same matter File:South Asia (ed)update.PNG File:Location-Asia-UNsubregions.png on Wikimedia. It's two maps related to the same bogus. There are significant flaws with these maps, and even though I wrote to him he didn't do anything with it, simply ignoring my words and the obvious sources. They are the same maps pushing the same wrong point if creating a geographical entity for a definition that was never ment for that(!) I was hoping whether you could help and correct them instead as you were once involved with wrong maps about the same region.

Problems:

1) on the first map, Iran (it's included into West Asia/ME per all global and institutional definitions but that here aside for now) is added to the south Asian region. In the legenda it says "also included by the UN". However, this is plain wrong. The United Nations has many departments. The UNSD (United Nations Statistics Devision) is one of them. Per this department, Iran is added into South Asia, for statistical purposes only. However, all other UN departments do not add it to South Asia. For example, UNICEF (another UN department) does put Iran correctly into the Middle East/West Asia.^[1], or the WFP.^[2] Therefore it should rather say "also included by the UNSD only" in the legenda by that reasoning if adding the self-only used UNSD definition to it as it's only used by them. All other worldwide organisations and publications such as the CIA world factbook, ministries of foreign affairs of all nations, News organs, well, everyone puts it in West Asia/Middle East as obviously it belongs there historically, geographically and above all geo-politically. Mapa are created for geographical or socio-political entities of which the UNSD definition used only by themselves is not one of. It's ridiculous that something so obvious and simple needs to be discussed even, but alas. At least we have enough wary people in the world.

2) second, there is an error for the map above I linked that it even got created. The UNSD has never created such a map and published it. Why? Because that never was and remains the intention of why this deviation definition of the region in question is in use by them (And by the UNSD department only). This definition namely was purely and solely made for certain statistical conveniences for the UNSD itself, while they gather statistics.^[3] It was and never was meant to show itself as a geographical entity or socio-political entity having boundaries on a map. By uploading that map their intentions are therefore extremely misinterpreted, as it was never ment to be or show itself as some territorial region or area on any map, which unfortunately, the map you have uploaded does. This is perhaps the largest error about the whole matter. The uploaded of that map obviously hasn't gotten the reason of the UNSD and has never read the UNSD site we can conclude from that. That is again confirmed by the fact that others (including you as I saw) had to correct him, rightfully.

Therefore, I would suggest deleting the map from Commons, as it misinterprets completely the intention of the UNSD department of the UN as proved. Both two maps do. On top of that, for Iran especially, it completely confuses a lot of people unintentionally. Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, etc are all in South Asia per many if not most definitions, however, Iran is never put in there. It's always in the Middle East/West Asia/Near East, whether one talks about history, geography, or politics. It is a core nation of Western Asia/Middle East, and one of the most defining ones for this geographical entity that is jn use for so long ago. Therefore creating a map that shows boundaries per a department-only used definition for only statistical usage (the UNSD of the UN) that was never meant for it to be created, is wrong and misleading on literally all fronts.

Thanks in advance and thanks for reading my message. I sincerely hope you can help me with this.

PS: I actually found the official map of South Asia by the United Nations, published by them and it's here on Wikimedia too. As expected and logical it doesn't include Iran.;

.

Regards. 84.241.199.216 (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Allen, Gardner Weld (1913). A Naval History of the American Revolution. Vol. II. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-8126-9593-9. JSTOR 3793107. LCCN n/84/236913. OCLC 2613121. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help); Check |lccn= value (help)

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   22:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

We're starting a major maintenance run on portals to transclude leads directly on the portal base pages.

The reason I'm contacting you, is because you expressed concern over obsoleting all subpages. We need your input/oversight to help point out portals, or ways to detect portals, that should not be converted. So far, I've instructed the AWB'ers working on this task to not include the portals listed under the Specific Maintainers section in our project members list on the WikiProject page.

But in case there are other portals besides these that are sensitive, perhaps you can help.

The task thread is Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#AWB team please tackle maintenance run on intro sections.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   23:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This article does not cite any sources.

This article does not cite any sources.

{| class=wikitable |- | {{Party name with colour|Scottish Liberal Party}} | Blabla |- | {{Party name with colour|Social Democratic Party of Germany}} | Noch mehr blabla |- | {{Party name with colour|Social Democratic Party of Germany|full=yes}} | Noch mehr blabla |}

Matthiasb (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

impossible to prove.^[4] "impossible to actually prove",^[4] Matthiasb (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)