User talk:Ehrenkater

Welcome!

Hello, Ehrenkater, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dumnonii edits June 2009[edit]

Ehrenkater- Thanks for your edits, you've picked up some good points. I've been working on this article for a while now, and you get to a point where you begin to overlook wording and mistakes because you're so used to the article!

The only edit I am not happy about is using the word West Cornwall instead of Southwestern peninsula. Cornwall did not really exist as Cornwall until much later. I know what you mean, but isn't there a better way to word it? Let me know what you think on my talk page! Meur ras! :) Brythonek (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Workington[edit]

Thanks for your help on on the town's entry. Very much appreciated.

Andy V Byers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy V Byers (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contract bridge[edit]

Hi Ehrenkater! Thank you very much for improving the text quality on the Contract bridge article. Your knowledge on the English language and grammar really makes Wiki a worthwhile encyclopedia. Once again, thank you.
Krenakarore (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic[edit]

Ehrenkater, It's just to say thanks for your follow up edits. It was very fast on my heels, but they were good edits. I intend to beef that article up a bit, but I don't have access to the necessary documents at this point in time. David Tombe (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Saint Paulin Church <---- thank you![edit]

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		Thank you so much for the great work translating at Talk:Saint Paulin Church. It reads much better now than I thought it could, and you did in a couple of hours what I couldn't have achieved in ten. I'm pleased to have had your help and improvements! Maedin\talk 21:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits[edit]

Hey! Just wanted to say thanks for your useful edits here. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I want to say Thank you! for your cooperation related to Steinway D-274 . -- AxelKingg (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If interested - here we go again.. ;-) THX in advance. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelKingg (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of rivers of England[edit]

Thanks for jumping in so quickly and correcting the Thames tributaries which I've made special mention of in the talk page to the article. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for helping to raise Ely, Cambridgeshire to GA status -- Senra (Talk) 01:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

appreciated[edit]

Hey, thanks for making some corrections to the Latin and translations at Palais Saint-Georges. In particular, well done on this little improvement! I had to giggle when I realised the unintentional double entendre. Julia\^talk 10:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

Thanks for the copyedits to Language - they really were an improvement. I am going to take a break now, so if you like I'd be very happy if you go over other parts of the article as well. Best.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One minor comment: My recent expansion is part of a larger effort to improve the article and make it conform to MOS standards so that it can progress towards GA or FA status. For this reason it will make my avoid stand alone sentences but rather write in full paragraphs, and finally include references to reliable sources for all claims. Thanks again! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voivode of Transylvania[edit]

Thank you! Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isabeau of Bavaria[edit]

Thanks for the copyedits there. I'm in the building stages and it's still very rough, so it was nice to see your edits. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Thank you for helping to combat deletionism! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you[edit]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your editorial work on Feudalism. Sometimes removing a few words makes a huge improvement in readability and clarity. Thank you for your effors. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 20:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Thanks for your edits on Blackburnshire. Now I can spend more time on the facts side which was what I wanted to work on. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones[edit]

Cynwyl Elfed last month; A40 road (London) this month.

Good evening Mr Ehrenkater,

We meet again. Cynwyl Elfed in September and now the A40 in London.

Your first posting today (covering the West End) is on a section that I "inherited" and had intended working on later. Your revisions are most welcome.

My maternal grandfather was born and raised in Cynwyl Elfed.

Sincerely,

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 19:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for working on the Velká pardubická article, much appreciated. Jonclay (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emley[edit]

You were quite right, and what's more the editor has introduced factual inaccuracy.J3Mrs (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Health & Morals of Apprentices Act 1802[edit]

Thanks very much for your edits on this article. I really appreciate any help! I have reverted 2 changes as I feel it changes the meaning that was implied in Percival's report. Everything else sounds a lot better. Thank you =) Staceydolxx (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Special Barnstar
	Your edit really helped on the information above the table on "Region of Italy" on Simple English Ayo99 (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're good![edit]

Wow, I saw your copyedits to Promotion (chess). Hope to see you touch more chess-related articles in future (so many have such terrible prose!). Kind regards, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian names[edit]

I see you've been editing Indonesian names and you seem to know the subject matter. I just wondered if you had seen the comment I just posted on the talk page of the article regarding the section on "Arabic names". CorinneSD (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitely not an expert on the subject matter; I was mainly trying to make the English easier to understand. I have now looked at your comment, and then altered the word order of the sentence you referred to which lists the Islamic ethnic groups; this should hopefully address your question.----Ehrenkater (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire paragraph now makes sense and is clear. Good edits! CorinneSD (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank[edit]

Thank you for your edits on article Bosnian language. --Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Berkhamsted[edit]

Thanks for your edits and corrections, i will answer/improve references etc later after your improvements etc -- BOD -- 16:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i am very grateful for your edits and hope you are able to do more which def help improve the article. I seem to have got your clarification requests temporarily confused for citation requests. I will be more able to make corrections after xmas (currently i am on to me a very frustrating and limiting ipad). I was wondering whether to put the 'associations with the town on a seperate page' but i have never started a new page.

Sorry about my confusions regards spaces after all numbers and the writing dates out in full - both made recently due my misunderstanding the auto peer review suggestions. Apologies too regards my bad English. -- BOD -- 18:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The things you mention are really minor and there's no need to apologise :)

I think the main issue with the article at the moment is that it is rather on the long side for a town of this size, and so if you could move some of the material to (a) separate page(s), that would be great.

Hope you get a better computer for Christmas :) ----Ehrenkater (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ;) i will try to resist editing until then. I have not started a new page, but will look into it. Apart from a 'list of people associated with town' page, i guess I or someone could put the 'buildings and sites of interest on another page. I did get carried away on the demography section, would you suggest reducing it. I am resistant to removing the history of the town on a separate page, the conquest, castle and 13th century heyday (and 17th events) etc are to me essential parts of the town's make up. -- BOD -- 19:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Constructive Article improvement
	For much appreciated help on the Berkhamsted article Bodney (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further edits you did today, hope I satisfied the clarifications requestedBodney (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyediting on English language[edit]

Hi, Ehrenkater,

I appreciate your care and attention to detail as you have been revising my recent changes to the Geographical distribution section of the English language article. I see you've been reviewing other sections of the article too. It looks like the article will be submitted for good article review soon, so I'm grateful for the second pair of eyes looking at each sentence and paragraph. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Idiomelon[edit]

Dear Ehrenkater

Thanks for your very helpful suggestions and corrections. You are a very precise reader and corrector and you asked very good questions which helped me during the revision. I could shorten the text (turning like a carrousel around the same subject), but I prolonged it again with some additional explanations and notes.

I am sorry that your corrections and tags interfered with my last revisions of the text. I hope that I did not messed them up. I also changed now the leading section (all the languages should be transcribed here, but the Slavonic one I found in the last section). Also the sentence "Unlike..." was not really helpful, so I rewrote it.

Now my revision is finished. You can trust me that I do know what I am writing about, but it would be enough to know, if the text has now become comprehensible for a very understanding reader like you. Of course, you are always welcome to improve my English, if you still find time for it.

In any case, if you do not find time for a second look, many thanks for the splendid work you have done so far. Platonykiss (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

26th Lochiel[edit]

Hi Ehrenkater

Thanks your improvements - much better. Very happy to be guided by you as to what to say where you put "fact" & hope you like what has been put so far.

This is what Tam Dalyell had to say (but it's a bit long to squeeze into this article I should think!):

[Quote deleted]

Many thanks again for your assistance. Best M Mabelina (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit on Walmer Castle...[edit]

...just to say thanks! Looks much better as a result. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Helens[edit]

Thank you for your recent edits. Koncorde (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	for applying continuous Mr Sheen to significant articles on Wikipedia Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latitude[edit]

Thanks for your careful edits. I constructed the present version without the history section. I will probably suggest the creation of a separate page but I'd be interested in your opinion first. Peter Mercator (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter Mercator. I'm not sure I fully understand the question. Please clarify. In the meantime I might have another look through the article.---Ehrenkater (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of England note issues[edit]

Just a quick note from me to say thank you very much for sorting the table our on that article! I was having trouble with that! Much appreciated. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome :) ---Ehrenkater (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wallabrook[edit]

Thanks for sorting my error. I should have checked grid refs as well as names.— Rod ^talk 18:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I just found some other Walla Brook photos that I took a few years ago (GR669785).---Ehrenkater (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern England[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for copyediting the article - you've really made the wording tighter and clearer. Cheers! Smurrayinchester 09:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to check this edit. Defining the Watford Gap - the pass between Northampton and Leicester - as the entry-point to the North does seem to be sometimes meant seriously (for instance it's useful in linguistics as it's more or less the location where the features of Northern accents, like the short a, begin). It's defining the North as starting at Watford (the town on the outskirts of London) that's always a joke. Smurrayinchester 19:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian presidential election, 2017[edit]

Hello! I would like to thank your previous contributions to improve the quality of the article. I finished writing the article in the past days. Unfortunately my English knowledge is not so good, so, may I ask you to continue copyedit to fix typos and errors etc. Thanks in advance, --Norden1990 (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance[edit]

Man! You are quick. Thanks! -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berkhamsted[edit]

Huge appreciation for your improvements. I know the last paragraph about the castle is not in the sub sections date period, but I do think because as it is about the castle ~ it should be there. I feel its a bit lost in the 19th century section ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am away from home for 10 days at least atm and with an uncomfortable set up. I hope to resolve all the clarification requests when I am fully back. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation for the continued help tightening up this article. Gradually tackling the clarification requests. I have reworded the passages regards Brownlow v Smith in the Land dispute: The Battle of Berkhamsted Common sub section and the one about the number of job seekers in the Employment and economic wellbeing sub section. Please check if they answer your requests. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You dropped this in Oxford...sometime in 1142[edit]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Thanks very much for your sterling work turning my turgid prose into decent English. It's greatly appreciated! ——SerialNumber54129 21:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) ----Ehrenkater (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buildwas Abbey[edit]

Many thanks for your help with this article. It has long been rather sparse (and not entirely accurate), so it's good to have a critical eye on the recent expansion. I note you asked for clarification of the statement that Bishop Roger de Clinton gave the abbey "a man, at that time one Edric, in the territory of Lichfield." I'm not sure what you had in mind. So far as I can tell from the text, that is the simple fact of the matter: the gift was a man called Edric. Presumably his heir would inherit this vassalage to the abbey. Sometimes medieval people just thought and acted in ways we find shocking and there isn't always a lot more we can do to explain it. I thought it best to note the fact without comment, just as I have duly noted that many churches, including possibly this one, owned slaves. Edric was presumably English but there is nothing to indicate his status further. At least one of the other men given to the abbey was a high-ish status landowner, who commutated his services for cash, as becomes clear in the table. Feel free to devise a clarification. I didn't want to burden an already complicated text with surmise. Thanks again for your detailed work here. Sjwells53 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to your fortitude in art of concision.. Bravo The offical press release (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits on chess articles[edit]

You're good! --IHTS (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits on Cornish uprising of 1497[edit]

Thanks for the good copyedits! Mrmedley (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits on Inverkeithing[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for the help with Inverkeithing - the article seems to not have gotten much love over the years, and I appreciate your edits. Arcaist (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Japan[edit]

Good day mate, i saw you've edited Politics of Japan, i welcome your help to make informations to the general public, more readable, and also wikipedia in general, anyway have a nice day mate Tristepin222 (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Tristepin222[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for correcting my mistake on the Edith of Mercia article. I always thought ferch was verch. I shall not make the same mistake in future. Thanks again.--jeanne (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Documents in the Case[edit]

It's an oddity, though, isn't it? I don't know another work of hers that depends totally on an epistolatory form, though she does use the technique to good effect elsewhere, particularly in Busman's Honeymoon. (Apparently she had been reading The Moonstone and wanted to experiment with the technique of multiple first-person narratives.) I reread it regularly and admire it, but I don't love it in the way I love the Lord Peter works (or even the Montague Egg ones, come to that). I am collecting bits and bobs on her collaborator on this novel "Robert Eustace" (Eustace Barton MD), who also collaborated with crime fiction pioneer Mrs L T Meade and wrote crime fiction on his own account. He appears to have suggested the main plot device - the muscarine-poisoned mushrooms - and also the rather metaphysical theme of Life vs the artificial construct that imitates it but cannot copy it exactly, and all that follows therefrom. I am desperately curious to know whether his influence on the novel was confined to the Big Idea, or whether it actually extended to the contribution of any content at all. I suspect not, but it would be wonderful to know. Karenjc 21:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh people[edit]

Good to see you making some edits to List of Welsh people - plenty more work to be done there, thats for sure. One of those changes was to entries' order; from the English alphabet to the Welsh alphabet. The purpose of arranging lists in alphabetical order is that entries may be found by the reader. The vast majority of users (almost everyone, I would guess) would expect to find items on the English Wikipedia to be ordered in the English alphabet. Consequently, ordering entries using another language's alphabet would be likely to cause frustration and/or confusion. The Organisation section in WP:LEAD allows for different ordering criteria to be used, but it needs to be agreed (please use the talk page to gain consensus first) and it needs to be explicit to a casual user i.e. noted in the introduction. Please revert edits made in the alphabetical ordering system and please don't make any further such edits until consensus has been reached for those changes on the talkpage. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hainault tube station - Services and connections[edit]

Hey there, I've noticed that you have added a reference to it, congrats![1] However, you need to uncover the bare references added since it made the page ugly and also shrunk it which make readers hard to hover around the article.[2] This should be done to future edits as well. Oh and also try to add notable subjects and not like these information which is unneccessary since it deviates from the topic.[3] Thanks. Vincent60030 (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] No need to be sarcastic.

[2] Go ahead and do it.

[3] The catchment area of the station is definitely on topic.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being sarcastic, okay?! I am just trying to give some encouragement. Is there a problem with me being nice? Also, you are the one who added all these contents and I don't have time to resolve it right now. I'm schooling and I have another article to attend to since I have nominated the article it has been Goh through the review process. Vincent60030 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expect an editor of seven years probably doesn't feel in the need of so-called "encouragement" from one fifteen months _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translations[edit]

Thank you for your comment on my translations, but you should be aware of variations in spelling which used to be far more common. I have taken liberties which are small compared with, for example, the spelling of "choir" in Durham Cathedral as "quire"!!! If you look at sources even in the nineteenth century you will find considerable variations in the spellings of place names, this has continued much later into the 20th century with Welsh placenames (e.g. Penmachno/Pennant Machno/Pen Machno and Llansantffraid/Llansaintffraid/Llansaintffraed). Emerald (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are spelling variations, but you have not produced any evidence to support your suggested translations, which are prima facie implausible.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One letter difference is "prima facie implausible"? You are being ridiculous now and you are annoying me! Well I have at least one reference for the Cynllaith translation and just need to find it - then you need to apologise. Emerald (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If and when I see the relevant page of the book you have cited, and it confirms what you say, I shall be happy to apologise.----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, the relevant page (bottom of 105) can be seen via Google books - Link. Emerald (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thurso[edit]

Some of your edits are OK but you introduced too many problematic ones to accept your recent edits. Please don't remove mention of hotels for starters, and don't add a silly "clarify" on church hearings tag.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a tourist guide: the list of hotels constitutes advertising. And what does "church hearings" mean?----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as "some of the edits are OK", why revert them ?----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. I have many high quality articles at GA or FA which document hotels. Too many editors dismiss mentioning hotels as travel guidey. If you write it as if you're advertising them then its problematic but for comprehension sake briefly mentioning a few of the most notable ones is fine. You also moved the part about gravestones being vandalised from the church and underneath the lighthouse. Makes no sense. The source doesn't explain what a church hearing is, any attempt to do so would be OR. Your other minor edits looked OK though. I reverted (as I said) because you made too many problematic edits. Find a way to deal with my concerns and make your other edits stick and we'll be fine! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, will copy this to the article's talk page so that other editors can actually read it.----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Occupational Pensions Board[edit]

A tag has been placed on Occupational Pensions Board requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/psimanual/Introduction/psi3.1.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Island on river Cefni?[edit]

I removed your bit about Llangefni being in an island on the river, because I could not see any evidence for it on the map. It looks like you rephrased existing content based on a misreading (the town is near the centre of Anglesey, and also on the river). --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Langley School, Loddon. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. TJH2018talk 16:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • LOL, not a disruptive edit.----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the above user subsequently thanked me for my edit(s) to that article. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flüchtlingspolitik[edit]

Thank you for your comments on our class project; the translation of "Flüchtlingspolitik". We have tried to clarify from the source the first comment you have made. Many Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franslation21 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why microwaves?[edit]

Hi, thanks for helping out. I've added a source to answer your question. It might be worth adding a whole section on "The Water Hole", which is a key part of the search, though it seems to have fallen out of favour among researchers lately. It comes up in the historical sections, in any case, so that may be enough coverage of the question.--Thomas B (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that the "water hole" is referred to later in the article, maybe we could have a brief cross-reference to that in the lead?----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit hesitant about integrating it too much for the moment. There's been some dissatisfaction with my new section (see talk). If it lasts another 24 hours, I'm going to see if I can summarize it in the lead, and make the connections to the later sections clearer.--Thomas B (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been informed below, getting this material (or at least the fact that I'm the one trying to add it) is going to be very contentious. I'm withdrawing from the effort; I didn't come back to fight. Maybe you'll have better luck with it on your own if you think there's something worth keeping. Happy editing.--Thomas B (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting bad edits today of the Winterton On Sea article[edit]

1) Why does the History section need the title "19th. century" put in bold put half way down it, when the section ranges over many centuries? 2) Why change "In 1864 the novelist Wilkie Collins visited the village while preparing Armadale...." to "In 1864 the novelist Wilkie Collins visited the village while preparing his novel Armadale...." ? 3) Why delete the short paragraph about Hermanus Holidays, when the "huts" are clearly visible from the dunes and form part of the character of the village? Have you ever been to the village? They had been on that web-page for years. I have no connection with them. 4) Why change "In 1956 when he was seventy-eight years old, the fisherman Sam Larner..." to "In 1956, at 78 years old, the fisherman Sam Larner...". They all make the article worse, I will have to revert them. 92.24.189.44 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 Simply to break up a long paragraph. 2 To make it clearer what "Armadale" is. 3 Advertising 4 Numbers are more concise than text.

---

Ehrenkater (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do object to your borderline vandalism edits, which spoil a good article. They add nothing, only make the existing content worse. You are behaving like a bully or a troll. 92.24.186.92 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. Another user, who reverted your edit, appears to hold a different opinion. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BofE[edit]

You're quite determined to avoid use of the word "latter". Is that because you didn't know what it means or because you initially misread the article? ;)

Misha An interested observer of this and that 18:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, of course I know what it means, I'm just trying to make the article a little clearer :) ---Ehrenkater (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you made a splendid job of it; I'm sure that particular sentence can't be any clearer than your latest edit makes it. Well done!

Misha An interested observer of this and that 12:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) ---Ehrenkater (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany[edit]

I note you have edited this article, which has been moved to the title "Grundgesetz for the Federal Republic of Germany" without discussion on the talk page. As it stands, the proposed title, and counterpart English translation, look a lot like original research. I have asked editor Hornsignal to put the article back and discuss the move on the article talk page; otherwise will assume that you are happy for me to revert all your changes. See Wikipedia:Requested moves Cheers. TomHennell (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that elements of this article are controversial. However most of my edits are straightforward non-controversial copy-editing and therefore I am not happy for you to revert my changes.

I disagree that changing "Basic Law" to "Grundgesetz" is original research, as that is quite evidently the German name for it. That does not mean I agree with moving the article, as article titles should generally be in English.---Ehrenkater (talk)

Thanks for your comments Ehernkater. I may not have expressed myself fully, my reference to 'original research' was to the edits to the beginning of the article discussing the best translation of "Grundgesetz" into English. So far as I can tell, the formulation proposed by editor Hornsignal "Fundamental Law Code" is his own invention as applied to the Basic Law of the Federal Republic. TomHennell (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was war das für eine Aktion? Nach "TomHennell" ist es "Original Research", auf ein Wort in einem Wörterbuch zu verweisen, und "Diskussion" besteht für ihn anscheinend aus "Sch...egal wie genau Du begründest, ich reverte sowieso" zu bestehen. Gibts noch mehr solche Gestalten "keine Ahnung, aber Hauptsache eine Meinung" hier??? Gruß Hornsignal (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for some background on the community's history. Unfortunately, one paragraph is a copyright violation of content from this site. I paraphrased the content and asked for the revisions with the copyright violations to be hidden.

Please see WP:Close paraphrasing for information about rewording content to avoid copyright violations. If you are familiar with the background and have a chance to verify if the content is reworded accurately, that would be wonderful. For instance, I took the original content to mean that Abermule was formed with the 1986 Review, but I see that Abermule railway station has an earlier history... assuming 1986 Review refers to the year 1986.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The village of Abermule was clearly in existence long before 1986, but apparently the Community started 1n 1986.----Ehrenkater (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for your edit about that. I made a tweak to return it as a component of the community, but not mentioning anything about it being "new" - perhaps relative to Llandyssil being "historic" (i.e., the source could have been clearer about the degree to which it was recent).

Regarding treatment of citations that are now deadlinks, the proper procedure is to add {{deadlink|date= }} with the month and year that the tag was added. That way, there is still an idea of where the information came from. Otherwise, it could theoretically be removed as uncited content or original research.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earl is not capitalized in the majority of sources (as you can see the article is very well sourced. I have capitalized it where it is capitalized in quotation marks in one instance from an older source, but have followed the convention in the modern sources which is not capitalized. Please don't run a search and replace without checking the sources. I will address some of the issues raised in the tags. Another note, do not arbitrarily change spellings to British English, I don't know all the rules of British English and as the major recent contributor who has worked on this to bring it to GA, I have written the article in American English. Also do not tag bomb the article, it is pretty inappropriate to stalk my edits and tag bomb an article and arbitrarily change the spelling to British English after reverting my copy edit on another article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 Currently it is full of issues and obviously nowhere near GA status. I have just gone through a little of it, and gave up after a bit, hence the "etc".

2 As I am sure you are aware, there is no need to follow the wording of a source word for word, let alone letter for letter. In the case of quotations one would of course follow the original closely, but not when the quotation has already been translated from the original Latin.

3 As the subject is English history, it is not appropriate for it to be in American English, just because a major contributor is American.

---

Ehrenkater 11:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4 Please feel free to remove the tags once you have fixed the issues.----Ehrenkater (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on fixes from a very thorough GA review from Peacemaker67 so I think that is well in hand. I'm gotten in touch with the article creator to ask about whether the American English is ok. Pinging here Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I will leave the tags in place until other editors who have worked on the article and review have a chance to take a look. I don't know of any rule that American English is not appropriate for British history articles. I've worked very hard creating the maps and doing the copy editing Peacemaker67 asked for, so whatever consensus is I will do my best to follow it, but my understanding of the English guideline is that it is not appropriate to unilaterally change the consistent style on any page without discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ealdgyth linked me to the policy. For future reference, it helps to point these policies out, not ever editor knows them. I haven't been editing that long (under a year.)Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - my copy editing is always a work in progress and you've picked things there quicker than I would have done! There's probably more... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Department of Education, Sport and Culture (Isle of Man). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Department of Education, Sport and Culture. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Department of Education, Sport and Culture. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the previous article was renamed shortly after I had created the new one. You may wish to do the same thing (if not already done) for the Department for Enterprise, which has similarly been renamed. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Department for Enterprise (Isle of Man). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Department of Economic Development (Isle of Man). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Department of Economic Development (Isle of Man). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Whispering 02:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say The pound sterling is not a physical object but a monetary unit. We have a whole article on the one pound coin in Wikipedia One pound (British coin): The British one pound (£1) coin is a denomination of the pound sterling. Its obverse bears the Latin engraving ELIZABETH II D G REG “Dei Gratia Regina” meaning, “Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen” and F D meaning Fidei defensor, Defender of the Faith. Sbalfour (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A one pound (£1) coin is of course a physical object, but a "pound sterling" is a currency unit and not a physical object. If A owes B £1 million sterling, the debt will not be settled by A giving B a million pound coins.----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the mass of the £1 coin varies according to which version of the £1 coin you are talking about. The version recently replaced in the UK (but still in circulation elsewhere) is 9.5 g, and the gold sovereign is about 7.99 g.----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be cautious in making changes to the science of the article. If you want to contest something, please bring it up in Talk (as you did with the RDA versus UL contradiction). I will try to find the appropriate citations. David notMD (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ehrenkater, How are you> I don't think we have spoken before. I noticed you made some good-faith edits to the articles. Thanks for your work, but I may need to revert them. You need to be careful what your changing stuff, but it may not be apparent. For instance, if you can see that observed means notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant whereas watched means look at or observe attentively over a period of time. So you are changing the meaning of the sentence. It is ok if you are writing an article about Margot Robbie for instance, where stuff can be generalised, but for this, words have very specific meanings, as it is report from a bunch of cryptanalysts. Looking at this one:

As a result of watching to Despite observing traffic in Great Britain. Despite means exclude, but there is no mention in the sources, being excluded. The mathematicians and linguists. I missed that. The sources say that but it does need clarification. Also this, contrived, which means deliberately created rather than arising naturally, You have removed that fact, now it is, they has a supply. You have simplified it and taken out a fact. scope_creep (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at linguists. I think you might be thinking of the modern version. The dictionary definition is a person skilled in foreign languages.. There is a couple of copyeditors on it at the moment.scope_creep (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) A common meaning of "observe", especially in a military context, is to keep watch on something over a period.

(2) It would be usual for an insurance company to have mathematical experts, but it is not obvious that they would have linguists, in any sense.

(3) It is clear from your comments that you are not a native speaker of English, so you are not qualified to comment on the use of English in the article, or to revert changes to the English. In places, the article currently has bad English, which is the main reason why it needs reviewing.----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ehrenkater. I have noticed you have edited quite a few British pages and was wondering if you could please add your thoughts to this discussion under the subheading 'The Guardian' on the page - Talk:List of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom. Your involvement would be much appreciated. Essentially I have tried to add to the introduction that the page includes centre-left and far-left publications, as many of the publications listed would largely be regarded as far-left. One editor has been constantly reverting this change so the introduction only reads left-wing (despite the inclusion of many far-left publications) and removes any added centre-left publications. There has been more discussion on my talk page should you require more inormation, if you have any questions, please ask me. This really needs the involvement of more editors. I'd really appreciate your help. Helper201 (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benelux&diff=prev&oldid=689484887 : did you mean to use another word? Surely not exiled! --2601:643:8680:158F:A5C9:9EAA:6064:C148 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What alternative word would you suggest? The three countries were under German occupation, and would have had governments in exile.----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kerry Sharpe has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added two references for each of the four articles. Further sourced material can be added shortly when the Tynwald website is updated. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry for this, for some reason I forgot I had already done the undo and I did it twice, which ended up reverting your...un-revert? Not trying to edit war. Thanks

Also, while the revert was honestly accidental, you're patently wrong about the info not being in the citation. The info is the only thing on the citation. The citation is literally a list of the names. 24.38.192.180 (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list of names in the citation is similar to what you have added to the text, but

(a) some bits are missing from the citation, (b) there are big differences in the spelling, (c) the citation gives a list of separate names but you have strung them all into one.

Also you have made a typo ("Dominitian") at the beginning of the sentence.----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand your reasoning then, thanks. Though there's really no excuse for the misspelling. 24.38.192.180 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do invite you back to Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man, now back in mainspace, and to discuss issues at Talk:Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man. You were partly right in your remarks there and at my Talk page, I will acknowledge, including that it is unusual/weird for an editor to try to control a page by moving it to their userspace, which I did. I do hope you can see that I was proceeding with sensible direct and related development, such as setting up pipelinks to display "official" registration names in many cases, and adding numerous Isle of Man Registered Buildings to disambiguation pages. Whatever about that.

It would be particularly great if you could help with location information, possibly including coordinates to point to the exact buildings. I did start The Albert Tower by the way and found its coordinates from Google maps' satellite view, which works for grabbing coordinates if you are informed enough to be able to zero in on the building of interest. (Probably you know you can then right-click, select "What's here" to see and copy-paste coordinates.)

Also to prioritize which ones are more deserving of new articles. --Doncram (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think you mentioned in this diffsomewhere, maybe only within a hidden comment or otherwise I can't find it, about "Sulby" vs. "Surby" distinction. After wasting time looking for Rose Cottage in and near Sulby, I eventually figured out that Surby Road, Surby was probably intended. While official list gives "Sulby Road, Sulby", I see that Listing document from 1983 mentions "Surby". And I find this thatching website which mentions re-doing a thatched roof in Surby and shows a before pic that seems to match up more or less. However, I still can't find it in Google satellite view. I have been up and down Surby Road and others nearby. Can you please help out with this place's location? Grovel, grovel. :) Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's at the back of, or next to, Folly Cottage, which you can see on Google Earth at grid reference 209708.----Ehrenkater (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I restored all your changes about "(parish)" items. But by the way, Laxey article has infobox with "Parish: Laxey" that I gather should be fixed, but I am not sure if it should show "Garff" and link to Garff, although that is a sheading, or what. [You yourself noted that some issues with respect to Garff amalgamation were yet to be addressed, i noticed. --21:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)] --Doncram (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just corrected the Laxey article to say "Parish: Garff (Parish District)". Garff is also the name of a sheading, but the sheadings are mainly of historical interest only, whereas the parish district actually has an elected board of commissioners which is similar to a parish council in England.----Ehrenkater (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said "Something about whether the word means "motionless" or "without regulation"?" Was my question factually incorrect? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baseball Bugs

• Your translation was correct.
• It could possibly be argued that your contribution was not very constructive.
• But it was, to say the least, extremely mean of another user to flag it as an "unwelcome interjection"! ----Ehrenkater (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your confirmation and politeness. I was trying to get some clarity on what the OP was asking, and I thought Jack overreacted (and I told him so) but I didn't see any point in edit-warring his boxing-up of my question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking Me4PF article (and keep it up). What aspect is unclear abuot this statement: "Tetramethylammonium fluoride is produced by combining tetramethylammonium hydroxide and hydrogen fluoride in[clarification needed] isopropanol". Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the significance of "in". Does it perhaps mean "in solution in", or maybe something else?----Ehrenkater (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To chemists, "in" can range from "dissolved in" to "suspended/slurried in". "In" is a convenient way of avoiding getting specific about solubility (where another editor can demand solubility info) and following the guideline WP:NOTMANUAL.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain this edit. I'm lost here due to the assumption that the fraction is 18 divided by 37, which is 0.486.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18 divided by 37 is indeed about 0.486. However 37 divided by 18 is about 2.056. If you take the 25th power of 2.056 you get about 66.6 million, so

"1 in (37/18)^26-1" is about 1 in 66.6 million, i.e as stated in the version of 14:48 today (time stamp might be different in your time zone) which you reverted.----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which source does the order of being elected/amount of votes come from, so I can see if I can add the information in a more apparent manner? 92.39.197.89 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you are making, while no doubt bona fide, are pedantic and unhelpful, and I note that you have already been temporarily banned under another user number; however for your information, here is a source for the numbers of votes in the 2018 election:

http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard/20002020/k180312.pdf

---

Ehrenkater (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding that being only for the latest election, if you wanted to be helpful you could add that to the page itself, then it would be for everybody's information. I shall refrain from listing further ways in which you are being unhelpful, and, indeed, all further communication. 92.39.197.89 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to improve this article recently as it is very poor especially considering it has over two million page views in the last year. In the UK most manufacturers produce and shops sell mattresses in dimensions showing both feet and inches whereas in America they sell them based in inches. I personly do not think it is unnecessary to show both as it helps readers from both areas or if only one is needed the mixed unit should be used for the UK as that is common there. Any thoughts and thanks for copy editing through some of my mistakes. --Voello _talk 15:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The units shown should preferably be the same in all geographical reasons, for comparison purposes.
• Many users will focus on the metric units. Others, who are more familiar with feet and inches, will be aware that there are 12 inches in a foot. Some of these tables are already cluttered with a lot of figures, and in my opinion it is unhelpful to add more figures than necessary. I have no problem with adding a footnote to say that iit is common in the UK to use mixed units.----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might it not be appropriate per MoS conversions to have a double conversion due to the difference in use of units between these countries? --Voello _talk 17:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The USA, UK, Canada etc all use 1 inch = exactly 2.54 cm. (The US "survey inch" id very slightly different, but that is not relevant here.) ----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. --Voello _talk 18:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ehrenkater - could you please stop the work you're doing on FA Cup Semifinals - I started working on the same article a few minutes ago and am half way through a long job on it - I keep getting edit glitches due to your work! Cheers, Grutness...wha? 13:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I've finished what I was doing, but had to undo one or two of your changes on the way to fix the tangle we made between us! Sorry to have been a problem :) Grutness...wha? 14:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, let's say it was 75% my fault because I started my edits while you were working on it.----Ehrenkater (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't put in the edit summary that I was going to be working for a while, so I'm not blameless! Grutness...wha? 01:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just see your edit that use British words (e.g. colous). Please stop use them. Thank you. Christopher --240D:1A:F4:1600:9DB3:776F:65F5:9E01 (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC) The reason why I changed that was that the word "colour" (with a U) already appeared many times in the article. I just changed the other few instances to make the spelling consistent across the article. By the way, why do you emphasise (sic) that this is the "English Wikipedia"?----Ehrenkater (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this edit. I just wish the media would stop reporting that "The UK Parliament has been dissolved". It's no surprise that people think it's already happened. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ehrenkater, give me explanation of genotypic ratio of dihybrid cross. The Aman kumar (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added it at the end of the article! There are 9 possible genotypes, with ratios ranging from 1/16 to 4/16.-Ehrenkater (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You added merge tags to List of football clubs in the Isle of Man but didn't actually start a merger discussion anywhere. Without one, the merge is unlikely to happen. Cheers, Number 57 17:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I bring the contents and information of the dwarf star (architecture) Waeseong Architecture documents of the Korean Wikipedia? There's something you've turned back on.?

(Korean : 한국어 위키백과의 왜성 (건축) 문서의 내용과 정보를 가져와도 괜찮을까요? 되돌리신 부분이 있어서요...)

If possible, I would like to complete it by reference to translation. For your information, we are planning to complete the Japanese Wikipedia and the 倭城 document.

(Korean : 된다면 번역만 참고해서 어떻게든 완성하고 싶습니다. 참고로 일본어 위키백과 倭城 문서도 완성할려고 예정하고 있습니다.)

Currently, I would like to ask for permission to edit documents as a regular user who likes to edit and edit Wikipedia, Korean, Japanese and English. I beg you.

(Korean : 현재 저는 위키백과 한국어나 일본어 영어의 편집과 수정을 좋아하는 단골 유저 로써 문서 편집을 위해 허용을 부탁하고 싶습니다. 부탁합니다.) 103.250.231.42 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

me find the sources for those world population. I know YouTube/Quora/Yahoo are bad sources, but whoever made those videos don't even say where they come from. Only one says, but it says The Angus Maddison Project & UN World Population Prospects. It doesn't even link, so don't delete my page, just help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferctus (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you to find a reliable source. Also,

• assuming that a reliable source can be found, the information would be better presented in a table (with one column per "milestone" and one row per country).
• it is not "your page"; you do not own the page.
• please sign your posts (using four tildes).

---Ehrenkater (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and many thanks for your efforts to improve this list.

It may be helpful for you to know that the list has completed its review at Featured Lists, bar for being promoted, apparently because there are very few people left at FLC, possibly to do with Coronavirus, I don't know. I would therefore very much like not to make substantive changes of any kind to the article at this juncture as they would very likely compromise the FLC. I would be very grateful if you could hold off on your improvements for now, therefore. Coverage of the school's traditions was specifically requested at FLC, i.e. they thought that the concept of "Old Wykehamist" needed fleshing out with an account of the school and its traditions, which are indeed distinctive in this case. I'll be happy to discuss anything about the article here, or if need be on the article's talk page, but I'd tremendously appreciate it if we could leave the article alone just now. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Loch Morie, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Regarding the Enigma Machine: I see the link you pointed out, to Cryptologic Bomb, but this still leaves the Polish word "bomby" floating out there in a meaningless state. I had to search the article history to find a version which included a link to its meaning to figure out what "bomby" meant, as it is not connected to cryptologic bomb in a logical way. Perhaps if "bomby" were placed in parentheses after "cryptologic bomb" it would gain meaning. Or perhaps "bomby" should be removed altogether. Is "bomby" even a correct pluralized word? I can't read Polish. In any case, I'm sure I'm not the only person puzzled by the appearance of this undefined, language-specific word. Cheers! Captain Infinity (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a few words to make this clearer. (I had already added the word "such" to show that the expression refers to the previous sentence.) I assume that the use of the word "bomb" in this context (eg at Bletchley Park) was merely an anglicisation of the Polish word bomba. ---Ehrenkater (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)+[reply]

• Nice fix, very clear now, thanks! Captain Infinity (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. (I don't speak Polish, but I know that plurals are at least sometimes formed with y, and I saw that the word bomby appears several times in the Polish-language Cryptological bomb article, so I assume it's correct. I have also now looked it up in Alan Turing's biography (Alan and I had a mutual friend, but that's another story!) and that consistently spells the English version of the word as "bombe", not "bomb".---Ehrenkater (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please at least provide one verifiable reference for this place? It's nice, I've been there :), but a reference "ordnance survey map" without any further details or links really isn't much good to anyone. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you saying that there is some doubt as to whether it really exists?

• As you have been there, you are in a great position to add further details.---Ehrenkater (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more surprised that you would drop unsourced stubs into mainspace. Yes, technically, in absence of any source there IS doubt as to whether it exists, even though I personally know better. Come on - if you don't have a source to go with it, don't mainspace it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean, there isn't a source? The Ordnance Survey map is an extremely reliable source, couldn't wish for a better one. (If you haven't looked it up, either on line https://www.bing.com/maps or (as you've been there) your own personal map, the grid reference is NM6486.) Thus, technically or otherwise, there is no doubt whatsoever that it exists.---Ehrenkater (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're planning on putting the sourced material you removed back at some point. Serendi^podous 14:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What sourced (or unsourced, come to that} material did I remove? ---Ehrenkater (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The simultaneous transit of mercury and solar eclipses. Serendi^podous 14:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you give more details. The ones after 10000 AD seem to be still there. If I inadvertently deleted some somewhere else, I'll happily put them back.---Ehrenkater (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. It seems you may have put it back. Got lost in the confusion. Serendi^podous 16:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find it was never deleted in the first place.---Ehrenkater (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your revert on List of rivers that have reversed direction. I was starting to try and fix it, but I guess that reverting was the better solution. Auric talk 18:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry I see you are still editing, I thought you had stopped. Thanks for catching the error, plase carry on and I'll come back to finish my additions / sorting on the table later on Mujinga (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished for now; you carry on.---Ehrenkater (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, cool, I'll keep on then. I was surprised to see someone else editing, it's not a particularly popular page! I'm going to add the recent admission regarding the 20 years old theft of some priceless Darwin notebooks, please feel free to add any missing heists later on. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Der Beitragsorden
	I was excited about your fast and perfect help, within a few hours, or even within minutes. Your “clear and short wording” helps a lot to improve English contributions of a non-native English speaker. Thanks a lot. Matti&Keti (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, solches Lob ist immer sehr geschätzt :) ---Ehrenkater (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your improvements to Speaker's House. Who should we harass for images? No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ehrenkater. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Loch nan Ceall, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ehrenkater. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Loch nan Ceall".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! --Ferien (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ehrenkater. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Loch Morie".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! --Ferien (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ehrenkater.

I've been working on the Africa Re article for a few days to resolve text and reference issues.

First, I added the image of the logo in "Company infobox". Then I added sections to the article like: History, Presidents and CEOs ... The next step was to add and check references.

I look forward to your comments and reactions on the article. Also, there is the "template message" at the beginning of the article. Is there a possibility to delete it since we have added several references.

Regards,

Silicopt (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through the article and made a few minor changes. I agree with you that the template message is now inappropriate, and I've deleted it.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to add this information in "Infobox company" of the "Africa Re" article:

(( Key dates 1980, opening of the first subsidiary in Casablanca 1995, opening of a subsidiary in Johannesburg 2010, opening of a Takaful reinsurance subsidiary in Cairo 2012, expansion of activities in Latin America ))

I can’t find the right “Fields” and when I create one, an error message is displayed. I need help. How i should proceed Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silicopt (talk • contribs) 11:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you create a new table and there insert the information you want to include.---Ehrenkater (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading this. Come any time. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the curly apostrophes (’) not used? --Tarnoob (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Apostrophes---Ehrenkater (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not quite sure what happened on the Boson article - it's possible that I may have been accidentally working on not the most recent version after your edits. As you'll have seen I've been making significant changes to eliminate duplication and improve clarity, and to be honest I hadn't noticed your changes at all. I think we're both working to the same end, and I apologise if I removed constructive edits there. Your recent revert restored not only your edits but also the whole poorly-written and duplicative Properties section. What I'd propose to do, if you agree, is to go back to my edit, then manually to go through and put back your edits one by one. Happy to discuss of course if there are particular issues. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will look at it later. I agree that changes were needed to eliminate duplication and improve clarity. Not quite so sure about deleting stuff because it's too complicated for the average reader. I imagine many readers of the article will be quite knowledgeable about the subject. On the other hand I don't feel qualified to critically review the more advanced material.---Ehrenkater (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Only a few small bits deleted, not so much because they are too complicated for the average reader but on the basis that they are WP:UNDUE in the context of this article. Details more applicable to another article already linked. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where two people own one item together, we place the possessive only after the second-named person. [1][2][3]

In this case, the visit to Te Amamutu was both of the Queen and Prince Philip, that's why we should only use the possessive with the Duke of Edinburgh. Peter Ormond 💬 17:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your citations are of course correct, and I haven't tried to revert it. However in my opinion this falls into the category of Fowler's and Orwell's dictums: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that arguing with fellow editors is against the site's condition, also if you use the Welsh language in argument, other editors are not able to understand, being a Welsh speaker myself, this is a courteous message aimed to show that within the English version of Wikipedia, language should reflect it.

If you feel you are wronged, please address the issues within the page's talk page, which is designed to stop edit warring, seeing that you are indeed experienced within Wikipedia, I shouldn't have to make you aware of this. regards Hogyncymru (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hogyncymru. Thanks for your message. I don't have the time to address the issues on that page right now, but I will just respond briefly to thank you for your message.

I am motivated solely by improving the encyclopaedia. No doubt you will say the same. Therefore it is not a question of an editor being personally "wronged". "Arguing", to the extent that it means debating the merits or otherwise of particular edits, without personal attacks, is surely permitted.---Ehrenkater (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your edits on the RAF St Davids article.

I have spent too long researching into the topic and my attempt to write them up (definitely, obviously) needed some attention from a fresh pair of eyes. It reads much better, thanks. Mikeyp72 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user had recently vandalised the wiki page of quadratic formula.please block him David dclork li (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I'm just an ordinary user and don't have the authority to block him. Ehrenkater (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw your edits to Stock Market Crash and your barnstars for copy editing. By cosmic coincidence, both of those are areas in which I may need input from other editors. Black Monday (1987) is in FAC and is suffering from lack of attention. That's the stock market crash aspect. If you do offer input, I'm not asking for support; please do oppose if you think that is best.
• As for ce, well, the article Bengal famine of 1943 could definitely use a top-to-bottom ce.
• This is the point where under normal circumstances I would offer to do anything I can do in exchange for your input. Alas, I cannot do that now. It would be perceived as quid pro quo. The first article is in FAC as I said, and the second may be so some time in the not-extremely-distant future.
• So thanks for reading. Cheers. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 10:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi, I have briefly looked at both these articles.

Black Monday[edit]

I didn't notice any evidence of recent edit warring or any obvious deficiencies in the article, so I'm not clear what sort of input you are seeking, or any particular issues which need to be either supported or opposed.

• Oh. I guess you've never participated in a featured article nomination before. That's what I was talking about. article is currently in one. OK, never mind, thanks. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali famine[edit]

• I see that you recently deleted a paragraph headed "A 2019 scientific study ..." It's not obvious to me why this was deleted, although I don't claim to know much about the subject matter.
• Droughts and floods in a region are not mutually exclusive: they might be at different times, one after the other, and compound the damage caused by each; or maybe they might occur in different parts of the region.
• In my brief review I did notice a moderate number of minor items for improvement, such as punctuation etc.

Happy to look at these again if you would like to draw my attention to any specific issues.----Ehrenkater (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Trimmed for increased brevity; improve prose. But that would be a nontrivial task, so don't worry about it if you're busy. Tks. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the tag on the meaning of Antiphellus. There's a discussion about it on the talk page. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ehrenkater (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looks like you undertook a great effort improving Transistor count the other day, but unfortunately some of your edits broke formatting. I fixed one (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1158962910), and there is at least one more: Genoa CCD size is now broken in two lines, and this is only what I spotted pretty much by chance without taking a close look yet.

Please don't neglect previewing edits before publishing, as otherwise you can either easily break something, or will make other editors waste their time cleaning up afterwards (fixing what I spotted was not a big deal at all, but that's just a single given article, and since you're an active editor, I'm afraid there are easily more cases like this one). By the way, nice user page, keep up improving the language – I checked some of your diffs in the article and mostly agree with your rewording, it does read better. 188.66.35.228 (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thanks. Yes, I do try and preview edits, but obviously I miss doing so sometimes. Thanks for praise re improvements: praise is always appreciated. (By the way the latest trend I've noticed recently on wording is the increasing use of "stated" instead of "said", immediately before a (direct or indirect) quote, especially when the quote is just expressing someone's opinion and not making a "statement" as such.) ---Ehrenkater (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put your bracketed term in a note. Hope that's OK with you. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's OK with me. Ehrenkater (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]