Jump to content

User talk:Markussep/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Mintilogli

Hi, agreed that Mintilogli needed some pruning, but I think you cut too much, e.g. the adjacent towns, the geographical description, etc. --Macrakis (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you've done this with many other localities in Greece, e.g. Argyra, Greece. In particular, you seem to systematically remove geographic descriptions and local history, like when paved roads and electricity came in, etc. Of course, none of this has reliable sources today, but at most that calls for a "citation needed" template -- but in these cases that strikes me as unnecessary. --Macrakis (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the problem with many of these articles is that Pumpie probably "translated" a Greek wikipedia article for one place and then copied it to many other places without checking whether it is accurate for those other places. As far as I could see, the geographical description is mostly nonsense, where are the pastures in Mintilogli, on the shoulders of the motorway? And there is so much trivial information in them! Who cares when lampposts were installed? Roads mentioned are often far away from the village at hand, and I think it's useless to repeat in every article about a Greek village that it gained independence from the Ottomans. That information should be (and is) in articles about the larger region, e.g. Achaea or Peloponnese. I kept information that could be interesting and verifiable (checked some claims about ancient Greece in Pausanias ;-)), and rechecked distances using Google Maps. If you think I deleted valuable information somewhere, let me know, and I'll restore it. Markussep Talk 15:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Mass renaming of categories

Out of curiosity do you support all of these " speedy changes by Good Ol’factory ? To me most of the proposal seem unnecessary and are actually more awkward.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a succinct and compelling edit summary

Thanks for your edit summary at Aubonne (disambiguation), it was sufficient to see that the way of naming that redlinked page was not consistent. I've fixed all the pages that I had pointing to Aubonne river. Josh Parris 02:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK! Markussep Talk 09:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Italy

Hi. I also asked Plastikspork this. In the commons we would seem to have a full and consistent set of commune maps of Italy in here. I was wondering if you could update Template:Infobox Italian comune to feature the maps by an automatic programming thing which adds the name of the commune in the image name to feature it in the infobox in a shrunk down way, rather like with the German local locator maps?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you fix the infobox in Grötzingen. The image and map aren't showing either.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Grötzingen done. I can't help you with the Italian infobox, I don't think I ever worked on that. Markussep Talk 13:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but how do I show the photo in the infbox? Actually looking at the maps they're not all consistent, some are svgs, some jpegs. Just a huge number of maps! Oh yes, I was thinking you did Italy too! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

See {{Infobox German location}}. Maps for municipalities are very consistent thanks to our German friends, for dependent places like Grötzingen it's different. Markussep Talk 13:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Phineas

Hi Markussep, I went about trying to move the associated pages in the wrong way. Could you please cast a !vote at Talk:Phineas#Requested move? Thank you — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 16:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Avignon

Hi. I'm just curious why you removed the climate chart from the article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, that wasn't me, but an anonymous after me, see diff. Markussep Talk 12:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Timmendorf

Hi Markussep, thanks for tidying up Timmendorf - you do a lot of good work. I'm not sure why our infobox doesn't match the German one exactly. I guess these things drift apart over time. Gruß. Bermicourt (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Historical populations template

Is there any way to keep this box from being transparent to bulleted lists. I like it better than the Demography box we were using, but it is almost always followed by the See also and References sections, and the bullets show through instead of moving to the right, for example, see Bruges, Gironde. Ksnow (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Ksnow

Ah, I figured it out: the template has to be followed by

. Ksnow (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Ksnow

Italian Vandal

Just a heads up. After all his static addresses have been longterm blocked he seems to have moved on to dynamic addresses. I keep watching the few honeypot pages on deWiki that he edits before getting blocked there to make sure I am ready when he shows up here. But I found he does not always go that route and found a few more edits from other addresses. I usually make a gobal check but at the moment he confines himself to here and deWiki. Agathoclea (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, good work! Markussep Talk 08:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Lampros Konstantaras

A tag has been placed on Lampros Konstantaras, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"NS stops" templates nominated for deletion

{{NS stops 32000}} and {{NS stops 32100}} have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: Infobox German location

Hello, Markussep. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox German location.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- this is because the proposed alterations failed significantly. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Piraiki/Peiraiki

Regarding your renaming of Piraiki to Peiraiki, shouldn't the fact that the company uses Piraiki in its URL[1] suggest that this is how it transcribes its own name?--Damac (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

URLs can be rather misleading, for instance "x" is often for "χ". I wouldn't know what English usage is in this case, it seems to be a rather obscure little brewery. Therefore I picked the standard transliteration rules. Markussep Talk 13:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Satzung

Hi Markussep, thank you for cleaning up Satzung. However, it makes no sense in English to say that "Satzung is a village in the town of Marienberg". Stadt in this context really means Stadtgebiet as opposed to Kernstadt and we would probably use "borough" or "district" to indicate that it's in the area owned by the town, not in the town itself. District isn't good because that's the usual translation of Kreis (which in my view should be translated "county" so we could use "district" elsewhere, but hey). --Bermicourt (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen you use the word "borough" for a municipality (Gemeinde) or town (Stadt) in several articles. I'm not an expert on English nomenclature of administrative units, but to me "borough" sounds more like a part of a big city (e.g. New York City, London). Indeed in German you can use "Stadt" for the entire municipality, see for instance this road sign. Is it really wrong to use "town" in the same meaning? Markussep Talk 10:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Talk-page stalker: How about using "municipality" for the larger Stadt in such cases? Yngvadottir (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine with me, also about the stalking ;-) Markussep Talk 13:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Changing templates

I have been changing the French commune population sections from the old Demography template to the Historical populations one. This is very tedious work and could be automated. Do you know an admin who could run a bot on this? There are 36,000 of these. Ksnow (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Ksnow

Hi, I've never worked with bots, but you could try Wikipedia:Bot requests. Or Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, that's a nice tool for repetitive tasks. But 36,000 is a bit much, I agree. Wouldn't it be better to convert the Demography template into a wrapper for Historical populations? Markussep Talk 18:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Legrena

Hi, can you add and infobox and population?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! Markussep Talk 20:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Greek Population 2011

http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/General/resident_population_census2011.xls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkario (talk • contribs) 11:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Kastellorizo

Hi there!

My name is Pantazis Houlis, and I am a Lecturer/Researcher at the University of Western Australia. I grew up in Kastellorizo, and I need to underline that the correct island's name is written with two lambdas (and in English with two "l"s). It is derived from the name Castello Rosso and not the "Castelrosso" which is a name I had never seen before, and I stumbled on it for the first time on the wikipedia page. The name Kastelorizo is very wrong.

Wikipedia is a very valuable resource and we need to use the names appropriately as the wikipedia pages are always being used as references. And if the references are wrong, it is spread all around the internet, where it is again wrongly duplicated. I actually discovered the error by a facebook location link to the (wrongly spelled) Kastelorizo title.

I appreciate your huge effort for updating the page, but it is of great importance that the name is corrected. In fact, the name was correct until seven years ago, when it was inexplicably changed to the wrongly spelled Kastelorizo. Today, I tried to do some changes myself, while being careful to not harm the valuable content. But I am not sure how to revert it to the correct title which should be Kastellorizo. Any help would be mostly appreciated.

Thank you, All the best, and Happy New Year!


Pantazis Houlis

My email is pantazis AT houlis DOT com (I will be back to Kastellorizo in February 2013)

Pantazis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kastellorizo (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I suppose you're right that it should be Kastellorizo with double l. Both versions are used in English (according to this search Kastelorizo was more common in the 1920s), but Kastellorizo is more used, and reflects the correct Greek spelling. However, I can't move the article, you should use the Wikipedia:Requested moves procedure for that. Markussep Talk 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I was just coming here to ask you why you moved it in 2006. On a quick search I found the same thing you seem to have found; modern English sources overwhelmingly use the double l (although Google maps doesn't!) but there are early 20th-century sources with one l. Do you think this is a controversial move, or is it a matter of the redirect having been edited in teh meantime? I see at least one editor in the past tried to change the spelling within the article to double l. If it's just the technical issue, I'll go ahead and move it, since you were the one who initially moved it to one l. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes please, go ahead! The redirect has been edited indeed. I don't think this is very controversial, although the single l version is also also used in e.g. tripadvisor.com Markussep Talk 18:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
That should do it, then, including cleaning up the redirects. Let me know if any problems do arise. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Hi again,

I appreciate the fast response and the changes. The data graph about the name usage is also very interesting.

If I could be of any help in the future,please do let me know.

Thank you and all the best,

Pantazis

Nomination of Rohrbach an der Lafnitz for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rohrbach an der Lafnitz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohrbach an der Lafnitz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rileychilds (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Municipalities and boroughs

Hi Markussep. Thank you for tidying up the infoboxes on German village and town articles. Just to clarify. The term "municipality" in English can refer to an administrative area at pretty well any level (a bit like the German Gemeinde). However, it is common for the admin area of a town to be called a "borough" and I often use this to translate Stadt when it's clear they are talking about the administrative area around a town, not the Kernstadt. Also it avoids using the word "municipality" twice (e.g. Xdorf in the municipality of Ydorf in the municipality of Zstadt). I know this isn't in the EU guide, but the guide is not very comprehensive! One day I may propose a change to the guidelines, but I need to make the logic very clear or it will get pooh-poohed! Gruß. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt, I think we've already discussed this some time ago, or maybe it was about "parishes" then. The thing is: currently "borough" is only used in Wikipedia articles about Germany for subdivisions of big cities like Berlin (e.g. Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf) and Munich (Trudering-Riem). I don't quite get your Xdorf-Ydorf-Zstadt example, I don't think there are Städte that are subdivided into Gemeinden. Could you give me a German equivalent? Markussep Talk 20:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Echinades islands and municipalities

The Echinades
The municipalities of Cephalonia (orange) and Ithaca (lighter orange)

Hello!

Any idea why you switched the name of municipalities for a few islands of the Echinades in these edits? According to the maps on the right, Kalogiros would indeed be part of the municipality of Ithaca, and Karlonisi and Provati in the municipal unit of Pylaros, now succeeded by Cephalonia. I tried to find an external source without much success. What do you think? Place Clichy (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I found a source: the 2011 census. Kalogiros is line 10369 in the excel file, indeed part of Pylaros/Cephalonia. Karlonisi is line 10136, and Provati is line 10141, both part of Ithaca. I checked the other islands as well, only Pontikos (line 10140) was wrongly put in Cephalonia, I changed it to Ithaca. It was correct in the Pontikos article. Markussep Talk 20:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

French canton infoboxes

I would like to see a change in the text that appears for this infobox: Chef lieu is meaningless for an English-speaking reader. Can we change this to seat? Ksnow (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Ksnow

You're right, I think "seat" or "capital" would be better. Which one do you prefer? Markussep Talk 18:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
In the French context, capital is strictly reserved to the national capital, I think seat is very good. Place Clichy (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, "seat" it is then. I changed it in the {{Infobox French canton}}. Markussep Talk 20:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

RER stations

Hi: I know nothing whatever about this so am asking; back in 2010 you moved the article I had created at Gare d'Épinay-sur-Seine to Épinay-sur-Seine (Paris RER)‎ with the edit summary that that's the standard nomenclature for RER stations. Today Captain scarlet moved Saint-Gratien (Paris RER) to Gare de Saint-Gratien and when I queried the move on his user talk after seeing no other such moves today, he moved the former article back to Gare d'Épinay-sur-Seine. Has the convention changed for naming these stations? Also, while I'm asking you ignorant questions, as I mentioned to him there was at that time a discussion at the WikiProject regarding whether to continue using "Gare de" or to move the French stations that aren't RER to "station" or to "railway station" ... was a decision reached? I ask not only in relation to these two and any that may be out of step with current convention but because I saw another really pretty little station a week or two ago that I might translate '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at List of stations of the Paris RER, it looks as if what you stated in your edit summary is still valid, for stations that do not also have other rail services; the only anomaly I see on a quick check is Gare RER de Saint Germain-en-Laye. But since I don't know where the consensus statement is to be found, and it's entirely possible it has changed recently, I'll hold off till I hear back from you or some other person in the know. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether there has been a recent discussion or change in naming conventions. There is a bit about stations on the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France and French-related#Transport conventions, saying that "Gare de" should be used. RER stations are not specifically mentioned, neither are metro stations. I see many RER stations were moved in March 2011 by Chris0693 to the "Gare de" versions. Before that, most if not all of them were at "(Paris RER)". I suppose it's a matter of taste, may it would be better to start a discussion so we don't waste time moving articles back and forth, or creating duplicate articles. Markussep Talk 19:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm glad I held off, I hadn't been aware of those moves at all - unless they were moving articles on stations that also have other rail service. I infer that the idea of moving "Gare de" to "station" was rejected. I am not in the Trains project and don't really have a preference (although beyond simplicity. consistent use of "Gare de" would have the advantage that when they open the Tangentielle Nord, articles on stations that are then on that as well as the RER won't need to be moved), so could I ask you to raise the issue there? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not in the Trains project either. I see there was a discussion in 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2010, 2#Capitalisation of french railway stations, which ended without a conclusion. I don't feel strongly about either version either, and frankly I don't have a lot of time, so if you want to raise the discussion, please go ahead. Markussep Talk 19:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, done, had better add it to my watchlist. Thanks for digging up that old discussion! Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for merging the articles on Thebes in Greece

Thanks for merging the articles. I noticed there was still a wikilink to the Ancient Thebes article in the disambiguation page, so I removed that too. De groeten! --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

List of rivers of France

Version 15:50, 14 July 2008‎.
Hello Markussep,
I think Po basin (Adriatic Sea) and Po/Pô (near Venice, Italy), Dora Riparia/Doire Ripaire (in Turin, Italy) and Cenischia/Cenise (in Susa, Italy) are not in France. Thank you.--Parsedan (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Oups! Sorry! Just confused by Po and Ebro rivers far away from France. --Parsedan (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for this! Much appreciated. Can we somehow determine when the file was archived on Wayback Machine? Nataev (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the date hidden in the URL? Does 20110810173103 mean 2011.08.10? Nataev (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
That's right, 10 August 2010. Markussep Talk 09:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether he may be back

I just saw this section at ANI. The one article I clicked on the history of had more edits to it than Pumpie used to do, and better English, but it had the "It has two platforms", and the articles have apparently been created by copying a template example. What do you think? Perhaps he has improved his English to the point where that part of the problem has at least been removed, or perhaps I'm reading too much into the resemblance. Also dropping this note to Cplakidas. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any typical pumpie-isms, but he/she is quite sloppy in his/her editing. I checked the article Dilesi, Boeotia, which was basically copied from the Schimatari article. He/she forgot to replace links and data that were specific for Schimatari. Most of it is incorrect anyway, Dilesi is not part of Schimatari but of Oinofyta, and I have no idea where he/she got the population data from. Anyway, I cleaned it up, and also Oinoi, Boeotia, I will check whether he has created more articles about places. Markussep Talk 15:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure now we're dealing with the same person. He hasn't responded to any of the comments he got, actually he hasn't done a single edit in talk or user talk namespace. And he makes the same crazy mistakes that Pumpie did. Take this beauty, there was not a single correct statement in this article! I think we should check whether he is a sockpuppet. Markussep Talk 13:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Opened a sockpuppet investigation request sockpuppet investigation request, let's see... Markussep Talk 15:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Good ... and bad. If only he would just start doing them right, it would be a happy ending. Or of course there could be another person who shares a couple of his tastes and is similarly sloppy, which is also no fun at all. Thanks for the fixes!!! Yngvadottir (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Follow up

NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) banned Oh Yeaaahh (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) today. Per WP:EVADE all his contributions may be reverted. However, this is not going to be a one-user task given the scope of the user's contributions and you may want to ensure that edits by other users are carried over. Luckily I have User:Marianian/checklist to keep track of the task. Suggested reasons for the summary box are also there. --Marianian(talk) 19:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD

In Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17#Template:Infobox French commune the question was asked if there where any special features. I guess you would know. Agathoclea (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Pumpie, once again

I just came across this nicely mangled translation from the Greek Wikipedia, and decided to check the creator's contributions. Lo and behold, Pumpie-isms galore: French, Portuguese and Greek articles, with dozens of any conceivable redirect created... I am filing an SPI, but please keep your eyes open for more socks. This one has been around for some time. Constantine ✍ 16:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're familiar with this user and his(?) socks. I'm in the process of purging the mass of Greek train station articles which he wrote and to which you added some polish; you may wish to re-create those yourself. (Check my deletion log if you want the full list.) DS (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Eip Mup

Give me a full list of the stuff you want restored, and I'll put the raw code in your userspace. You can then take it out, one at a time, and re-create it. DS (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

OK: Lianovergi, Chalcis railway station, Oinoi railway station, Oinoi, Boeotia, Kalochori-Panteichi, Leianokladi railway station, Palaiofarsalos railway station, Larissa railway station, Platy railway station, Adendro, Megara railway station, Katerini railway station, Florina railway station, Veroia railway station, Petraia, Pella, Episkopi, Naousa. Markussep Talk 19:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I've simply restored the ones you'd listed at DragonflySixtyseven's userpage; if he still thinks userfication is advisable, one of you go ahead and move them. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
What do you think best at this point regarding the still redlinked ones listed above? Also, please take a look at Artishert if you get a chance. One of the articles created by socks that DragonflySixtySeven deleted was Peace and Friendship station, which Oh Yeaaahh had created at SEF tram stop; after an AfD that ended with no consensus, it was moved, and Artishert has now recreated it at the original title. I'm now going to ping Constantine and then Dragonfly, but I'm at work, which is not conducive to a close examination of Artishert's work with comparison of deleted versions. I hope it's just a rail maven who wants there to be articles on all these. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC) - Sigh, he has just been confirmed as another sock. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox German location

Could you please pop by Template talk:Infobox German location - thanks Agathoclea (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Nancy, France

My mistake. Sorry. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, someone else made the same mistake after you ;-). Markussep Talk 19:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, we all spend so much time reverting vandalism, that when I see something disappear I just assume it's a vandal. In this case, it just got move to a better spot. Thanks again for the edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hameaux in France merged

Hello, following your CfD for merging of this category, I have carried out that request. However, you also wanted to similarly merge its subcategories. Unfortunately, as they weren't tagged for debate at CfD I can't really merge them (even though it should be obvious). For me to do so would probably cause unnecessary drama! So, can I suggest you nominate the subcategories yourself in a new nomination, and in your proposal reference the original debate? Splash - tk 22:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Cazaux

Hello

I'm sorry to tell you that the text I left on Wikipedia about the place of Cazaux (linked to the 36th Aero (Fighter) Squadron page), is correct.

This Cazaux is a village (part of La Teste-de-Buch town), in Gironde, Aquitaine, France and must not been confused with any other different Cazaux...

The airfield created there in 1914 in order to train military French and allied pilots still exist as Base Aérienne 120 Cazaux.

At the end of WWI, the AEF (American Expeditionary Force) had several units based here, including 36th Aero Squadron, Balloon companies (36th an 45th) and Artillery observers.

An ancient French then Russian Camp existing 5 km from the airfield was the "Camp Hunt" where infantry and artillery troops were trained before joining the Front.

Near this "Camp Hunt" a cemetery for American casualties was made nearby ; some of the pilots killed when serving at Cazaux where buried in this cemetery.

An American soldier (Lee Atwood Farris) serving as 1st class sergeant in the 36th Aero Squadron at Cazaux, married one of my cousin (Marie Mouliets) at La Teste in October 1918.

Regards,


gene@lehimas.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.196.182.119 (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverts to Template:TrainOSE lines

Hi, in regards to your reverts to Template:TrainOSE lines, I am 100% certain that Veggyyy is indeed another Pumpie sockpuppet (see WP:DUCK if you need a refresh), with the usual disruptive editing style. That means all his edits can go. Some article titles may have been targeted three times, which may make it eligible for WP:SALT. --Marianian(talk) 16:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretty obvious it's Pumpie again... I wish he would stop, there's still an enormous backlog of his rubbish all over wikipedia. Markussep Talk 20:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
That much rubbish? Would it make sense to delete all the tainted articles and recreate them as a barebones stub? --Marianian(talk) 21:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
For some of the articles that might work, I practically did so for some of the Cabo Verde and Greece geography articles. Several others were expanded afterwards by other editors, so they need manual weeding. And for other articles, for instance about amateur football clubs in villages with less than 500 inhabitants, like FC Belo Horizonte, it might be better to delete them completely. I don't know about the notability guidelines for articles like that, you? Markussep Talk 12:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Azores and Madeira Geobox data removal

While I feel you are updating content to the Geoboxes in these articles (and removing clutter), there are cases where you are removing content. I refer to the removal of data associated with places/communities within parishes, and specifically (as was the case of Cabouco) removing geographical markers (dimensions and altitudes). While at the same time places were removed from the Geobox and inserted into the body of the article, it does not necessarily mean they shouldn't be removed from the quick-reference Geobox. Could you provide me an explanation, or reference for this? ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've been checking articles that were edited by User:Pumpie and/or his sockpuppets. He created most of the articles about parishes in Madeira and the Azores, unfortunately using a lot of fantasy. I see that I removed some of your additions as well, while removing his rubbish. I must say I'm not so fond of the present Geoboxes, they're pretty big and not all information in it is that interesting. For instance the length and width of a parish, or the localities (up to 24 of those in some parishes). Some information was obviously wrong, for instance in Cabouco: the lowest point of the parish is most likely not "Pico do Machado". The demonyms I removed were not specific for Cabouco, but for the whole island and for the municipality, so they should not be in this infobox. I see the address of the freguesia admistration is actually given twice in the infobox (under LAU location and parish address), I think we should remove one of them. I removed the "area_land" field because that usually means "area without bodies of water", but here it's apparently the total area minus the built-up area ("area_urban", which sounds a bit funny for these villages). But if you think I removed something that's worth keeping, feel free to readd it, preferably with a reference. Markussep Talk 20:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Right. Will do. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For the Bruche river article Aarp65 (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Templates for railway lines in Saxony

Hi, as I know that you have created at least some of the templates for railway lines in Saxony (such as Template:S-line/RB-SN right/ELS etc.), I'd like to ask if you may help with this issue. I have found the left and the right part of those templates, but not the "middle part" with the operator's and the route name. And what would be the proper naming pattern for the new U28-line? The "U" basically results from the Czech network of lines in the Ústí nad Labem Region (see also de:Regiotakt Ústecký kraj. Thank you! Kleeblatt187 (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you can modify the middle part in this template: {{RB-SN lines}}. You can invent a code for the new line yourself, using a "U" may cause confusion with metro lines (U-Bahn), but I suppose that confusion is not so obvious in this case. Since DB also uses "U 28" (see timetable 247 in http://kursbuch.bahn.de/hafas/kbview.exe/dn?st_name=Sebnitz&st_filter=&cat_name=&searchmode=station&mainframe=result&orig=sS&dosearch=1&oblig_st=1&submitButton=Suche+starten), I think you can use it. If you need more help, just let me know. Markussep Talk 10:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks for pointing this out. I decided for U28 eventually. Some of the articles still do need some textual updates, but the templates should be fine now. Possibly we should collect all those templates concerning railway routes in Saxony in one category some day. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese parishes

Hi. The source you're using on the Portuguese parishes is not the Diário de Notícias, it's the Diário da República.--Cattus talk 16:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right, thanks for pointing that out! I'll correct it. Markussep Talk 19:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese Parishes II

Hi, Markussep. I see that you have been eliminating articles about Portuguese civil parishes (freguesias) that fell to the government's ax last year. I ask you to reconsider this action. To quote article 4 of "Lei n.o 11-A/2013 de 28 de janeiro: Reorganização administrativa do território das freguesias" [Law no. 11-A/2013 of 28 January: Administrative reorganization of the territory of the civil parishes] [2]:

"Cessação jurídica e identidade
A criação de uma freguesia por agregação determina a cessação jurídica das autarquias locais agregadas nos termos do disposto no n.o 3 do artigo 9.o, sem prejuízo da manutenção da sua identidade histórica, cultural e social, conforme estabelece a Lei n.o 22/2012, de 30 de maio."

In English (via Google Translate):

Termination and legal identity
The creation of a parish by aggregation determines the legal termination of aggregated local authorities pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 9, without prejudice to the maintenance of their historical, cultural and social identity, according to Law No 22/2012 May 30. [emphasis mine]

I believe that the removal of the articles is indeed prejudicial to the "historical, cultural and social identity" of the civil parishes. The articles should remain as a record of the civil parishes' populations, areas, etc., at the last recorded census before their aggregation. Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but I believe that the intention was not to eliminate the civil parishes themselves, but merely to do away with the separate parish governments, as a money-saving measure. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nelson, I agree that if there is valuable information in an article about a former parish, that information should be kept. Either in the article about the new parish (for instance a section about the settlements in this parish), or if there is much information about a specific former parish, in an article about that former parish. In the instances where a large article about a parish existed, I kept that with a link to the new parish. See for instance Dume or Estoril. If you prefer, I can also keep other articles about former parishes, if the articles exist and contain more than "X is a town in Portugal". Markussep Talk 12:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey Markussep! Just like to congratulate you on your work with Portuguese parishes. Your diligence and initiative on this subject was, in my opinion, the correct one. This also partly because you have had the rational and patience to examine all the former parishes and municipalities in order to aggregate them accordingly. Good stuff: your a better person then me, I would have gotten tired quickly. Further, I agree with your take on maintaining the older, historical names as receptacle for unique socio-cultural characteristics. I have also used this logic on the former districts of the Azores and the captaincies. Although they do no longer exist, their historical distinctness provides additional information. Once again, great job! ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, one final question...does this mean we'll finally see the complete elimination of the "Municipality" qualifier to many of the municipality articles? This was the most obvious and egregious legacy of Conradi. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ruben, thanks for your praise, I appreciate that. Yes, I've started moving articles back to the "Municipality"-less versions, and merging articles when it's easy to do. For many moves we'll need administrator help, and some others need to be merged. I'll put a list on the project page when I'm ready with the easy ones. Markussep Talk 20:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Markussep, In this 75th year of the congressional founding of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary, I am trying to thank every editor who has had a hand in crafting the Wikipedia article about founder Malcolm Stuart Boylan. Thank you very much for your efforts through the years! May you have fair winds and following seas all your days. Taram (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

When merging

Please add the {{merged to}} and {{merged from}} to source and target talk pages, this is important for attribution. Thanks for your effort on Amarante, BTW. Paradoctor (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will. Markussep Talk 19:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Municipality Infoboxes in PT namespace

While I do appreciate your efforts in attempting to make all the municipalities consistent, and don't understand why the creation of a PT municipality infobox was needed. In fact, most of the changes to the infoxbox seems to be eliminating content: both the old Infobox settlement or Geobox formats provided more information then this new PT municipality. Can you provide an explanation why this was necessary. Since I made a lot of effort to upgrade the infoboxes in the Azores namespaces, your move to replace all the infoboxes seems adhoc. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I created the new infobox because there was no room for a fourth administration level in the Geobox. I wanted to add the new intermunicipal communities and metropolitan areas, so I had to choose between omitting one of the other levels (districts, but well, they have historic significance, or the subregions, that might be rearranged towards the CIM/AM subdivisions in the future) or changing towards a different infobox. I think the new infobox kept nearly all information that was in the old infoboxes, except the width and length of the municipalities, the municipal holidays and the leaders of the municipal assemblies. If you think they're really important, you could add it to the new infobox, it's flexible. Meanwhile I would like to focus on updating the content. Markussep Talk 17:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
But, you do know that the inter-municipal communities are not fixed in stone: the inter-municipal communities can be abolished at a whim. The only real existing jurisdictional divisions (established within the constitution) are the regions, municipalities and civil parishes. Yes, the districts, as much as they are irrelevant are still being used. Most of these inter-municipal agglomerations are nothing more then mere associations, they are meaningless in the Azores and Madeira and have no political authority. Regardless, I don't see the need to create a whole new infobox, when the Geoboxes, and to a lesser extent the infobox settlements, provide all the information. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well not exactly at a whim, as far as I understood from the law text, changes to the intermunicipal communities have to be made by law. The regions (you mean the NUTS II regions I suppose?) are not those meant in the constitution, and don't have an administration AFAIK. I agree that this doesn't apply to the Azores and Madeira, I don't intend to introduce the new infobox there. Markussep Talk 18:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Pardon my melodramatic comment, "on a whim" in the sense that laws/decrees can be drawn-up to create or disperse inter-municipal communities. I refer to the fact that the constitutionally sanctioned jurisdictions are more difficult to abrogate. The referendum on creating a new level of government, inline with the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira on the continent, proved that it is almost impossible to implement new levels or abolish pre-existing bureaucracies. The inter-municipal communities are almost "free-associations" and are not specified in article 236 of the constitution, with no quasi-political authority. But, after your comments, I believe this point is debatable. Returning to the point at hand, does this mean you are going to change the Porto and Lisbon infoboxes as well? ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I added the new infobox to all municipalities of Norte region, but I skipped Porto because it has specific content about metro area etc. that I couldn't fit into the new infobox (yet). Since I have very limited access to internet in the coming weeks I'll give it a rest for now. Markussep Talk 11:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I have six divisions using Infobox settlement on Caldas da Rainha —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Keswick, Cumbria

Hi, nice to see your good work on Portugal, much needed! I was wondering if you or @We hope:, @Redrose64: or somebody could find me information from the 2011 census with more details rather than just a figure?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why I'm being asked, I've never added census figures and don't know where to find the census data. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Am I just being suspicious?

Both the English and the way of responding to criticism and advice at User talk:Allen2 (formerly AllenHAcNguyen) remind me powerfully of Pumpie. See also this, comment and the editor's response, for echoes. The area in which he's created articles is different though. I really hope there's just a bad online translator or phrase book out there. Also pinging Cplakidas. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello to both, and thanks for the ping. The focus of the editing have indeed shifted away from the usual themes, the pattern is different in seeking attention so forcefully, and the use of wiki shortcuts is markedly improved, but otherwise it is pretty much the same case. If it is not Pumpie, it is his long-lost twin. Even if it is not the same person, the same grounds still apply for blocking him: obvious incapability to use English properly, to understand other users' replies and to give a meaningful answer. It is a sine qua non, and if the Pumpie story taught us anything, it is that there is little point in trying to get such cases to clean up their act, and that every second spent on that is time wasted. Constantine ✍ 21:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
When I researched Pumpie, I noticed that he started out hellbent on adminship - half a dozen requests for it via the old request process, including one initiated while another was still open - and that his page creation frenzy began after he was told that he needed to write articles to gain adminship. The "prodigy" theme was also big in his first year or two on the site; people referred to him as "our boy genius". And the claim to be an insider in various companies is reminding me of Pumpie's talk page, although I'd need to check whether I'm remembering that right. I have to go to bed now; I may or may not have time to file a sockpuppet investigation request while preparing for work tonight. That would seem the fastest and therefore kindest way to approach this, if you also agree the resemblances are striking, Markussep? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I've had a few run-ins with this guy in recent months, I gave up watching his user talk page once it became apparent that he was using it mainly for facebook/twitter-style status updates. The last time I came across him was this morning, here. It seems that he claims to be an oversighter, and wishes to become a bureaucrat, despite not being an admin - or even having any rights other than autoconfirmed. His attempt to file a RFB self-nom was woefully flawed. Every few weeks he tries to find new ways to circumvent the WP:CUSTOMSIG rules, the latest case is here. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
His overestimation of his English language skills sounds very familiar. Looking into his mainspace edits, I see a lot of useless redirects, which was also a Pumpie favourite. Pumpie has edited many animated TV series related articles too, so yes, it might be him. Markussep Talk 15:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like he's been indef blocked w/o talk page access. Interesting thread on Meta too. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I inquired about an SPI but ultimately the plug was pulled by someone else first. Thanks for that link - his last edit there is reminiscent of P's last edits here. (Wow.) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:DagosNavy again adding River to river names

User:DagosNavy does not seem learn anything from the reverts made on river names. He renamed some around August 2014 which were never reverted (such as Ulla River and today he is starting on a new river renaming path. Can you deal with these articles and this editor? I left a note on his talk page a few minutes ago, which he immediately deleted. Hmains (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I dropped him a message, let's see what happens. I've started moving some articles back, could you help with that? Markussep Talk 15:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to move them back other than going to the 'requested moves' site and asking Admins to do it. Hmains (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Many of them can be moved simply back to where they came from, by using the "move" button above. Check the page history to see where they came from. Markussep Talk 21:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Whenever I try this moving over a redirect, my request is always rejected and I am told to go to 'requested moves' to do it. Maybe, I don't have the power to do this. Hmains (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
That depends whether there is much "history" at the target page. Try for instance moving Xallas River to Xallas (river), that should be possible. Markussep Talk 21:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, that worked--thanks. First time. Maybe I am usually involved with articles with lots of history. Hmains (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I did a lot of work on Rivers of Spain, but not all. I never worked on such rivers before and don't know what to do or how to fix the rest. And some of my fixes need further fixes--also which I don't know what to do. Hmains (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Good work! I suppose we can list the pages we can't move ourselves at WP:RM#Uncontroversial technical requests, I don't think these moves (for instance Bidasoa River to Bidasoa) would be controversial. I'll try a few, see what happens. Markussep Talk 09:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'm at work and may be called away, but if you provide a clear list here of what needs to be moved to where I'll happily use my admin powahs to move these back. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC) ... I've now done the 5 you had requested. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
You're fast! Here's a few new ones: Markussep Talk 14:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Zadorra River → Zadorra
Valdemembra River → Valdemembra
Guadalhorce River → Guadalhorce
Guadalmedina River → Guadalmedina
Odiel River → Odiel
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Markussep/Archive_8&oldid=1139106341"