User talk:Bermicourt/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bermicourt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9,Archive 10, Archive 11

I am currently revising for an exam and as I do it have been updating some wikipedia pages and putting expand from German articles, I note there are a lot of forestry articles that could be so expanded and also some wildlife / ecology / geology ones. Also much was done maybe 5 or 6 years ago and science has moved on (the Plant list from 2013 and IUGS time map from 2013) but of course the old sources are not so updated. I mention this as you have an interest in German articles connected to these topics and maybe you will look to update, might be useful to know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.83.168 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, although I am a translator not a plant scientist, so perhaps not best placed to keep those articles up to date. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Bermicourt, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Limes Britannicus. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 21:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Bermicourt, I look forward to seeing the expansion of that article. In addition, I work on several theology-related articles as well and am excited about the prospect of you joining that WikiProject in the future! All the best, Anupam^Talk 04:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The English Wiktionary defines Ortsteil as a district of a town. If that is incorrect, could you correct it?

Where would an Ortsteil rank in terms of the hierarchy shown shown in the graphic.

It appears that many other Wikipedia articles make the mistake of interpreting Ortsteil to mean division of a town, specifically articles about German places classed as villages. Is the redirect at Stadtteil also incorrect? ZFT (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this up, ZFT. I think English Wiktionary has a common misunderstanding caused by the fact that the Germans use Stadt to mean both "town" as well as "borough". So, typically, Stadtteil is a town quarter and Ortsteil is a village parish outside of the urban area of a town but within its administrative area. That said, Ortsteil can be used in other ways. I plan to research the admin divisions of the German-speaking countries in more detail, but it may be time to create an article on Ortsteil, rather than redirecting it to either "village", "parish" or "quarter", none of which is entirely satisfactory. But it may have to wait until I can free up the time. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching your great work on List of hills of Somerset & noticed you haven't included anything on the Mendip Hills - Black Down, Somerset has an elevation of 325 m & prominence of c. 241m so presumably should be included as a Marilyn. I would do it myself but I'm very unsure of the classification system being used.— Rod ^talk 19:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Also would things like Brean Down count & what about the Isle of Wedmore, Glastonbury Tor and Brent Knoll which stick out of the Somerset Levels count?— Rod ^talk 19:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm working down the table and have just added Beacon Batch / Black Down, Somerset. I'm basing it on the Database of British and Irish Hills and the criteria are in the section above the table. I would expect to include Brean Down, Brent Knoll and Glastonbury Tor, but the Isle of Wedmore isn't in the database - maybe not prominent enough? HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - looking again at the (complex) criteria Burrow Mump might count as a tump as well?— Rod ^talk 20:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Burrow Mump only has a drop of 29m, so just misses out on being a tump, but its historic status would qualify it for inclusion IMHO. I'll continue to add more over the coming days. Lets hope editors then start creating the redlinked hill articles! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

To try to get the articles generated would it be worth adding them to the The West Country Challenge (perhaps in the Missing article hotlist) which starts soon? Do you have similar lists for the other relevant counties?— Rod ^talk 18:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added Cornwall, Dorset, Somerset & Wiltshire. Would you have the lists for Devon & Gloucestershire done by the end of July?— Rod ^talk 18:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Possibly. Then we could be cheeky and create an English county navbox for hill lists. Would be quite red to begin with though! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

PS You've missed Hampshire - that's the only other one I think. All my other lists are for German states! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

For the definitions used for the challenge (based on government regions) Hants is not in the South West.— Rod ^talk 20:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Roger, that makes sense. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well done for your continued work on this but I'm confused. Niver Hill[3] & Niver Hill (county top)[3] have different fgrid refs & the county top one claims "Highest point in the current county of Somerset and the unitary authority of Bath and NE Somerset." It can't be the highest in Somerset (although possibly BANES). Glastonbury Tor is described as having "No feature" - its got a ruined church tower on top. Burrow Mump is described as "No summit feature; ground in remains of a church." - the ruined church is on top. I'm not sure what is going wrong or where you are getting these from but, having walked up most of these I know something ain't right.— Rod ^talk 15:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Also would you be happy for me to link Priddy Nine Barrows and Ashen Hill Barrow Cemeteries where it says "Priddy Nine Barrows" in the description of North Hill?— Rod ^talk 15:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Funny, I tried to link Priddy Nine Barrows and got a red link so I took it out. I didn't pick up that the actual article name was much longer. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm startubg a new discussion at WP:CFD about the naming of river categories. Since you have participated in t least one of the recent discussions in the matterm you nay want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 11#Rivers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contribution to the KC holder discussion. Since you mentioned that you may be able to translate articles from German, I'm wondering if I may interest you in translating the article on Günter Fraschka [de].

Similar to Franz Kurowski, this author is both problematic and is being used as a source on en Wiki. This may be a great addition to the English language site. Please let me know your thoughts. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a bit snowed under translating Franconia at the moment, which is a massive article. Perhaps down the line... Bermicourt (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This is just a reminder that Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge kicks off today, with the first subject being Bristol. Please remember to post entries under your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge/Bristol. You are receiving this message because you are listed as a participant in the challenge.

Happy editing! --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The first leg is Bristol. Names are to be added at the bottom of the Bristol page and articles listed. Please also make sure that you add entries you improve/start to the main list on the main page. There will be £10 to win each day for the most points accumulated and then the winner of the county crowned after three days. The overall winner will be decided from the points accumulated from each county round. If you're not interested in winning anything and want to contribute anything you want from the West Country this is fine too though. Best of luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Familjebok has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:§§ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious why you changed the date format. The text has no other specific date as far as I can see. I thought the general policy on Wikipedia was to leave things that vary from country to country such as date formats and spellings the way the first entry is. Kdammers (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Germania Sacra has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, if you can flesh out a few stubs or something towards this and add entries at the bottom they'd be very welcome!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:EnciclopediaDeiPapi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Internetquelle has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we can win the struggle at Wikipedia talk:Categorization for the old number sorting system, people seem to oppose clever category sorting. If we remove the numbers, we have to think of something else for the "other waterbodies" as well, because they will be mixed up with rivers starting with "C", "L" etc. Maybe create a separate subcategory for them, like "Other waterbodies in the Rhine basin"? Markussep ^Talk 12:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I just created Template:ULBDD and thought you might be interested. It was already being used in eight articles. Feel free to apply categories and edit the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Cool, many thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of hills of Kent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Hill. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ellis' Railway Encyclopaedia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Re your edit, if we're going to refer to a class we should say what class it was. Probably meant is the Prussian P 8, but I don't know this for a fact. Do you? Sca (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
	An opportunity for you and your country to contribute to the Women in Food and Drink online editathon Faciliated by Women in Red

--Ipigott (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Hi. The article River Derwent, Derbyshire just popped up on my watchlist, and in looking at I noticed that back in April you had removed it from the Category:Tributaries of the River Trent. At first I assumed that was some kind of mistake, as the article is so clearly a candidate for the category, and most larger rivers do appear to have such a category. So I reinstated its membership. But then I noticed that you had redirected Category:Tributaries of the River Trent to Category:Trent catchment. Not sure I much agree with this, as (a) the latter is a much bigger subject than the former, and (b) the latter now has a really bizarre indexing strategy based on a numeric representation of position that seems to stretch the whole idea of categories to and beyond breaking point (and would IMHO be much better represented in a list).

There was no explanatory comment on either change, I can see no indication that this was part of a bigger program to restructure river categories, and hence I can see no sign of any debate on this change. So I have also reverted your redirect (I've made no changes to Category:Trent catchment). Of course this now leaves us with a Category:Tributaries of the River Trent that has only one member when it should have lots. Before I start fixing this, and possibly doing more harm than good, I thought I had better try and find out what your motivation was for this change, and whether any consensus had been had. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, can I interest you in this or a 1000 Challenge for Germany?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Back in 2008 you created Category:Registered historic buildings and monuments in Bavaria. Around the same time Category:Heritage sites in Bavaria was created and is more in line with the category tree. Do you think we should merge those two, and in which direction? Agathoclea (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

 Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, good to see you sign up. I was thinking of creating Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Germany) based on Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). It's doing very well because it has regular editors to make it work. The entries can then feed into the main Europe Challenge. Would 1000 or 2000 or 5000 Challenge be welcome for Germany? A way to see content improvement mainly but new creations welcome too. If you can get some support for a German national challenge I'll start it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see Template:Disputed. You have not used the template properly. Where is the talk page section?

Note also that Help:Maintenance template removal is a how-to guide and explicitly not a policy or guideline. Srnec (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

British entries welcome on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Weichselian glaciation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know that I re-capitalized Gunner on the above named page as it is a rank in the Regiment equivalent to an SAC. Thanks and regards.The joy of all things (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bahnstreckenabschnitt Stuttgart Hbf–Waiblingen has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bahnstreckenabschnitt Stuttgart Hbf–Stuttgart-Zuffenhausen has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vorstandsvorsitzender. Since you had some involvement with the Vorstandsvorsitzender redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello Bermicourt, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017. Happy editing, auntieruth (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Of course we don't really have fens or moors in Australia, it being too hot and dry. In the mountains near Canberra there are highland swamps with ferns etc but in these days of global warming these dry out in the summer and are increasingly devastated by bush fires.--Grahame (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Round towers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Heyo. As a courtesy to a master editor I wanted to give you a heads up that I'm going to be working on a template that you created. My main focus is converting the template to use {{Infobox}} but there are also a number of fields that I feel do not belong in the Infobox and the box need to be updating to conform to WP:INFOBOX. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zackmann08:. Thanks for letting me know. I'm happy to see the template converted to use infobox. Please don't lose any parameters or data may be lost as a result. This infobox is in the same bracket as Template:Infobox German railway vehicle i.e. it needs to be imported, then auto-substituted. To achieve the latter we can use Template:Infobox Limeskastell as the wrapper. The end result will be an English-language infobox with minimal editor intervention. There are hundreds of these articles on German Wikipedia so that will be worth it. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. I shall keep it with the same params... My slow day became crazy busy so I haven't gotten to it yet. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Because of your input on previous discussions, I wanted to bring your attention to a discussion I have started at the Village Pump regarding the use of foreign languages in templates. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I just created Schloss Ledenburg, with several red links that may interest you, especially the former Burg ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt :-) would you pls be so kind to move Diemelsee (village) to Diemelsee (community) ? The commity de:Diemelsee (Gemeinde) has it's administration in de:Adorf (Diemelsee) which is in fact a village. Thx in advance if you can fix this. Best --Thombansen (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thx + additional question: de:Adorf (Diemelsee) has it's extention brakets, because we have more than one "Adorf" in germany (similar with other villages). In case i would create this article in en:wp ... should i use the same extention ? Best --Thombansen (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/771068202 -ized/-ised. Mea culpa, indeed. Thanks for catching it. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Portal:East Frisia, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:East Frisia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:East Frisia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

On 27 August 2016, you made this edit. There is a template error in the external links section. Not sure if there is a way to fix it, or if it should be removed. Please take a look? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fixed on three pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed the actual template now too. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that you have added material to the article Vogelsberg Mountains using content from the German Wikipedia. While you are welcome to re-use licensed content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original author(s). When copying from other compatibly-licensed web pages, please at minimum mention in an edit summary at the new page where you got the content. It's also a good idea to place a note on the article along with your citation. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied licensed material before, even if it was a long time ago, please go back and provide attribution. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't finished the translation yet, but I've added the source information on the talk page in any case. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The same problem on Landwehr (border). Please start providing the legally required attribution in your edit summary at the time you import the content. Here is a sample edit summary. There's also an optional template that can be placed on the talk page. I have done this one as an example. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Bermicourt, I must say that I find it really disappointing to see this. All this was explained to you by Moonriddengirl in 2014; she left you a reminder in December of that year, too. You are a remarkably valuable and productive editor, so it is really a crying shame if you choose to turn that productivity into a massive burden on other editors by not attending to this really simple detail. Because if you won't go through your contributions and provide attribution, someone else is going to have to do it, and that is a monumental waste of volunteer editor time. Please, fix this before it gets worse. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I've always attributed the articles afterwards, but usually in batches. And there has been little waste of anyone's time because I watch the articles and very few are ever attributed by someone else and none has ever been properly attributed i.e. with the version numbers. Only I have done that. But I'm happy to do the work as I import the initial text as this seems to have become more important recently. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

...I have deleted it as it was DE-Wiki content; did you want to create a draft to work on it? Ping me, and I'll restore it asap to draftspace. Lectonar (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bermicourt. You have new messages at Ricklarsen lux's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello and greetings from cloudy Geneva, With regard to "das Lehen" (singular) and "die Lehen" (plural), you are right. You are applying 20th and 21st century grammar rules to a word that is in current vocabulary and usage.

With regard to "das Afterlehn", which is now outdated (veraltet) and no longer in vocabulary or dictionaries, applying 20th and 21st century grammar rules is flawed, because you will not (normally?) find the word with those rules applied. The same would be true, for example, with modern day "besitzt", which in the 18th century was "besitzet".

Unless I have been reading too fast and not paying attention, the singular form is always written "Afterlehn". The plural form is written "Afterlehne" in the 18th century. In the 19th century I have also observed "Afterlehen".

Examples: Page 258, line 10: [1] Page 264, line 6: [2] [3]

In any event, thank you for the Wikipeda entry!

Regards, Rick

Hi there. I've noticed that you have added some mountains in western China to Category:Transhimalayas and its sub-categories. I'm just wondering what your definition for the Transhimalayas is? I've never thought of mountains in the Hengduan group as being part of the Transhimalayas, but perhaps I'm just not aware of some other sources on the matter. I appreciate any insight you could provide. Thanks! --NoGhost (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 823 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! As far as I'm concerned, "an" is to be used before words that begin with vowels or that are pronounced as if they were beginning with a vowel, to upkeep flow of reading. In "history" I do not believe that is the case, since the "h" is clearly and understandably pronounced. Well, just read it aloud : "was an historic police force" or "was a historic police force" - which one fits? -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever...) 20:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "an historic" or "an historian" is acceptable usage. See, for example, Sinatra–Basie: An Historic Musical First or the quotation in King's Head, Tooting. If you search WP for "an historic" in quotation marks, you will see plenty of usage. There is an old MOS talk thread here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

That's right and it's because in speech the "h" is often dropped with certain words e.g. "an 'otel", "an 'istoric occasion". This is not dialect but perfectly correct English, although the alternatives "a hotel" and "a history" are nowadays accepted too. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

1. Alliance of Community Radio Austria
2. Alliance of Community Television Austria

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bermi, are we going forward with the Germany/Germania sub challenge? Will I need to add the articles there too? auntieruth (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it the school closed last year and became an academy. CalzGuy (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

that's an entirely different school then. CalzGuy (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No, the school's exactly the same. Same name, same kids, same teachers, same head, same board of governors, same location. Only the status has changed. And it didn't close. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Legally, it's entirely different. And the governors will have changed in that they will no longer be appointed by the same people. Actually I thought we did BRD - you were Bold, I reverted and both of us were discussing it. CalzGuy (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It's just converted to an academy, with all that means. They've dropped "voluntary controlled" from their full title to reflect that. I've updated the infobox and added a remark in the history section. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWN CalzGuy (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:RSIGN/AT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Fredddie™ 15:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

When I came to the WikiProject Austria page today, I found that everything was grouped with the sidebar for some reason. I checked the edit history, and the last edit was the edit in which I added the tab header to ease navigation. The tab header was working fine when I first added it yesterday, but now, it seems to have moved the whole page into the sidebar. Do you know how to fix this while keeping the tab header?

Thanks, DraconicDark (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fixed, I think. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see that it got fixed. Thanks for fixing it. DraconicDark (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey95. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked again today, and everything's grouped with the sidebar again. The page history does not indicate any changes to the page, so I don't know what happened. Even when looking at a past revision without the tab header, everything is still grouped under the sidebar. It might be something in the wiki markup of the sidebar that's making it react adversely to the tab header and/or the page. The sidebar hasn't been changed since 2011, which seems to add credence to this theory.

I created the tab header based on the one that WikiProject Germany has, and the tab header and sidebar there have never had any adverse effects on the display of the project page. In addition to this, WikiProject Croatia has a similar setup without adverse effects. Notably, both of those sidebars are composed of collapsable lists.

Sorry for the page issues. DraconicDark (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries! It happens. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that it may have something to do with me adding the tab header to the open tasks page. This causes the tab header to appear in the sidebar. In addition to this, the tab header is on the project page twice: on top of the page, and above the Members section. I will see what happens if I remove the members section, since the members section is already a separate subpage that can be accessed with the tab header.

To fix the issue, I would recommend changing the sidebar to be something similar to what WikiProject Germany or WikiProject Croatia has. What do you think?

Thanks, DraconicDark (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tab header from Portal:Austria/Things you can do and the project page was fixed. This proves that the issues are caused by the sidebar reacting to the tab headers. DraconicDark (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt. The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every image file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these file are commonly referred to as "non-free images". Non-free image use is highly restricted and each use of such an an image must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrictions is WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. For this reason, File:BMW Berlin Marathon logo.svg cannot be used in Portal:Berlin/Article management. You can add an internal link to the file like I did or remove it altogether if you want, but you can't display the file. Perhaps you did not notice the edit sum I left the previous time I removed the file, so I am posting here for further clarification. If you have any further questions about this, feel free to ask as WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I did wonder why it wasn't displaying! I'll change the image then as it won't display on the portal as the article of the month. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Bermicourt! Excuse me, that I use German for my Posting. But my English is not so well. Hier ist mein Anliegen: Ich habe diese Woche Schloss Hartheim in Oberösterreich besucht. Meine Großtante war eines der Opfer. Ich habe eine Reihe von Fotos gemacht, diese auf Commons.wikimedia.org eingestellt und dort auch eine Reihe von Kategorien angelegt. Ich habe dann in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia entsprechende Erweiterungen gemacht. Sie sind noch nicht ganz fertig. Auch könnten andere User noch Korrekturen vornehmen. Aber vielleicht wäre diese Erweiterung und die neuen Bilder auch für die englischsprachige Wikipedia interessant. Kind regards from Austria. Heinz --Stefan97 (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stefan97. Thank you. I'll see what I can do. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Row graves, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Frankish colonisation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Barbaricum, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:North Sea Germanic peoples, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi old friend. I've just stumbled across a page that I believe merits deletion on both EN and DE wiki. It's on Grass climbing and I'm afraid is totally unsupported by any credible references. One is a photo of someone going up a very steep grass slope; jokingly titling their pic as 'we call this grass climbing', whilst another is a German forum discussion for someone making up a grading system for their mates to discuss (no replies that I could see). Neither of these can be deemed as WP:RS to support any claim this is a sport or a form of climbing that merits an article. OK, I've climbed some steep and utterly dire grass slopes in the Alps in my time, but that doesn't make doing it a sport or a branch of climbing- just a nightmare. So, out of respect (as you translated the page) I wanted to quickly seek your views and those of @Ericoides: before I take it to WP:AfD. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) (formerly Parkywiki) 00:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think it would be a great miss if the page were to be deleted. As you say, grass climbing is a real enough phenomenon (can't recall any pitches in the Alps; one vertical slope escaping from Piers Gill on Scafell will always stay in the memory, though), but if there are no credible refs to it as a discrete and named subset of climbing, well... Ericoides (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• There are some book references e.g. Dodsley who says "In the Allgau Alps one encounters strange, grass-covered shapes, not high but very steep. Those not accustomed to the technique of grass climbing soon find..." and Kluepfel & Kohr (translated): "grass climbing in itself is already one of the most unpredictable enterprises in mountaineering.", so it is a term found in both English and German literature and it is a real 'technique' in itself. Wrt the existing references, the first is intended only as an illustration; the second is not a forum thread, but an online article that is no worse than many journalist's articles that are often cited on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I think the article it can be improved by adding some book references as well. Shall we try that? HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Those are interesting, so why not? On a related matter, perhaps there should also a page on turf climbing, an essential part of any Scottish winter climber's repertoire, although turf could easily be subsumed into ice climbing (it hasn't been to date), in a way in which grass couldn't be subsumed into rock climbing/mountaineering. Ericoides (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Stadt Zürich (ship, 1855) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hallo! Can you please translate this article from German into English? I would be very grateful. Thanks! 80.246.140.248 (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not really my area of expertise or interest. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ZH8000. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Stop undoing many of my edits. You have no competence to do so, especially, since my edits conform with WP Policies. ZH8000 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I am simply following WP:BRD, unfortunately you are ignoring it. And, as you know, I have left messages on your talk page about this. You also need to read WP:VANDNOT and be very careful about accusing other editors of vandalism. Bold reversion is not vandalism. Bermicourt (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

On 24 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stadt Zürich (ship, 1855), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the Stadt Zürich collided with another ship in Lindau Harbour, a Bavarian correspondent sarcastically commented that it had sunk more German ships than the entire Royal Danish Navy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stadt Zürich (ship, 1855). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Stadt Zürich (ship, 1855)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 12:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Norden (East Frisia) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Strasbourg (506) 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/Battle of Strasbourg (506) 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 notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at your recent creations, and seeing that you have "created over 4,950 articles", as mentioned on your user page, has me worried.

• Battle of Strasbourg (506), which I put up for deletion: I highly doubt you have read any of the sources given, or else you don't seem to have understood them. Furthermore, it is an unattributed translation of de:Schlacht bei Straßburg (506), which makes it a copyright violation. Someone with your experience here should know by now that text, even translated text, needs full attribution.
• Prehistoric pottery in Great Britain is a too locse paraphrase of this site, which you don't even acknowledge. Furthermore, in your attempts to avoid a too obvious copyright violation, you have e.g. changed "particularly in Northern Britain some areas of which seem to abandon its use entirely." to "[...]deteriorated significantly in certain areas. In Northern Britain they seem to have dispensed with their use altogether." which is a completely different meaning (from some areas which abandon its use, to the whole of Northern Britain abandoning its use!)
• Abingdon ware contains information not in the one source given, and which I can't verify

Your other recent articles are all translations from dewiki: have you actually checked the sources used in these, or simply copied them and the information in the articles without verifying them? I see that you haev been warned about copyright problems in the past (e.g. in User talk:Bermicourt/Archive 10), but in the end the lack of actual verification of what you write is probably even more worrying. It's no good having articles on enwiki if we can't trust the author on enwiki to have at least verified the contents with the sources given. Fram (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Re Battle of Strasbourg. I'm afraid you're mistaken. I did read the sources; however, I wonder if you've read the wrong volume in one case and not related source to actual text in another. But that's better discussed on the article talk page.

Re Prehistoric pottery... Again, wrong, I'm afraid. I simply translated the text from German Wikipedia and have reflected that on the talk page which you may have missed. If you think there's a copyvio, I suggest you check where German Wiki got its text from and indeed whether the internet site has been sourced from elsewhere too, as is often the case. Again, it's better discussed at the talk page.

Your tone is a little patronising and you have jumped several times now to conclusions that aren't correct. Please be a little more considerate. BTW the so-called copyvios you're referring to were resolved simply by adding the German Wiki source on the talk page. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want me to be patronising and jumping to conclusions, then perhaps instead of all this nonsense you can finally give me what has started all this, i.e. the sources on the Battle of Strasbourg which actually deal with the battle of Strasbourg in 506? You were very quick to add sources to the article and vote "keep" because " I've found the sources mentioned" (no kidding, you wrote the article) but you haven't indicated which sources actually support the article (several clearly don't, none have been demonstrated to do).

You basically need to do two things: for the AfD, provide the sources (verifiable sources which support the article, not just some random sources) or agree to delete the article; and in general, stop blindly translating articles. Take an article at dewiki as a starting point, then check the sources. Things you can't check should be dropped from the article, things which are wrong should be corrected. Simply translating an article from a wiki is just as unaceptable as simply copying an article from a random blog or webpage simply because it has the right copyright status. Either go to the actual sources, or don't bother writing articles at all. Fram (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The sources have been sorted as far as can be at this stage. Meanwhile you need to own your own behaviour and not blame it on other editors. Assume good faith and be an encourager. We're not in it for money or fame! Bermicourt (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eifel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calmont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

See {{webarchive}} for how to use in English. The German version is different and can't be imported, it is generating a red error. -- GreenC 04:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Sudeten, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Che829 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Note to self. Reply to talk page. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Miranda has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:AdjustNumber has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of European Merit
		I, Vami_IV, award the Barnstar of European Merit to Bermicourt for their participation in the European 10,000 Challenge, no matter how minor. Bermicourt, you are an invaluable part of WikiProject Germany and your efforts to destub, translate, and polish the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia shall not go unthanked. –Vami_IV✠ 02:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Bermicourt by Vami_IV✠ on 02:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hi Bermicourt. The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every image file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these file are commonly referred to as "non-free images". Non-free image use is highly restricted and each use of such an an image must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrictions is WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. For this reason and as explained in WP:UBX#Caution about image use, non-free content such as File:Essexcricket.png, etc. cannot be used (i.e., displayed) in Template:User Essex County Cricket Club supporter. Perhaps you did not notice the edit sum I left the previous time I removed the image; therefore, I'm posting this here to provide more explanation. If you have any questions about this feel free to ask them here, at WP:MCQ or at WT:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, is there an image I can use? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You can try checking Wikimedia Commons for an image which might be suitable. File:Essex1897 RedLillywhite1898.jpg is public domain image uploaded locally to Wikipedia, but there may be more such images available on Commons. Anything licensed as public domain or under a free license can be used in userboxes. In addition, there might also be something like a wordmark found on the team's website, etc. which probably can be uploaded to Commons as c:Template:PD-textlogo.

It also might be possible that this shield imagery is either old enough or simple enough to be treated as public domain. Old enough typically means published anywhere in the world for the first time prior to 1923 under US copyright law (other countries may have slightly different rules), while simple enough generally means below the threshold of originality for the country of origin. The UK does, however, have comparatively low TOO as explained in c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom; so, it would be better to ask for other opinions at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VP/C before changing the license to PD for the latter reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bermicourt. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Bermicourt, thanks for creating List of old waterbodies of the Rhine!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. PLease add sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

As someone who has commented on this subject before, can you have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Istvaeonic_languages#RFC._Merge?_Split?_Re-name? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bausteindesign3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Selberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sellenberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed that you renamed the article "Kaczawskie Mountains" to "Katzbach Mountains" with the reason behind this being "Surprisingly the more common English name". You made a similar change to the article "Wałbrzyskie Mountains" (although that one was originally created under the German-English name). Do you have some specific sources that support that (I'm really not trying to be rude here, I'm genuinely curious)? Most modern literature about the Polish part of the Sudetes mountains is Polish and uses Polish or mixed Polish-English names, maybe except for historical references to the period before 1945. The use of German-English (as opposed to Polish-English) names for geographical features that are entirely in Poland also looks quite odd, as most articles about geographical features in the Sudetes use names in languages of the respective country those features are in (be it Czech Republic, Poland or Germany), unless there is a fully English name available. In the case of the Waldenburg/Wałbrzych Mountains, this looks even more odd, as they are named after a major city in the region, and the Wikipedia article of that city is "Wałbrzych", not "Waldenburg".

Best regards

--Piotron (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: A user in Talk:Waldenburg_Mountains also mentions the Talk:Gdansk/Vote, although I did not read through all of this talk page and am therefore not sure, whether it's supposed to apply in other articles as well. --Piotron (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Piotron: I usually go by Google books. Having re-run the searches, it now appears that "Kaczawskie Mountains" is more common in English sources than "Katzbach Mountains" (515 to 84 hits), but "Waldenburg Mountains" remains four times more common than "Wałbrzych Mountains" (98 to 21 hits). We normally follow reliable sources (mainly books) and the result is not always what one would expect. The most odd one is Bayern Munich - the half translated name of a football team. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

PS BTW "Giant Mountains" is also more common in English sources as "Krkonoše Mountains" or "Karkonosze Mountains" and the English name means we don't favour either of the two countries in which these mountains lie. So we should change that too, but be aware there has been strong opposition from native speakers to use the English name.--Bermicourt (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just done a similar search and have 280:39 for "Kaczawskie Mountains":"Katzbach Mountains" and 5:219:65 for "Wałbrzyskie Mountains":"Wałbrzych Mountains":"Waldenburg Mountains". A limited the search to "English only" but did not limit the time period (I also left all the other options as default). My smaller numbers might be due to "English only" option, but the difference for "Wałbrzych Mountains" is quite large. Have you not perhaps misspelt it? One thing is clear though, the preferred Polish-based name in English-language sources is "Wałbrzych Mountains", not "Wałbrzyskie Mountains". I may send you the links, if need be, I have never before used Google Books that way, so it's possible that I did something wrong. As for the Giant Mountains, I don't mind the current consensus as the Czech name is almost the same as the Polish one and the mountains are shared by both countries, so both names (Krkonoše and Karkonosze) seem natural and acceptable. I myself favour and use mostly the English name "Giant Mountains", although, as you have noticed, Talk:Krkonoše shows that this name seems to be disliked by native speakers. As for football clubs - as odd as it is, this "half-translation" seems to be standard. The most commonly used Polish name (I'm Polish myself) for Bayern München is "Bayern Monachium" and the fully German or, even more so, the fully Polish ("Bawaria Monachium") name is hardly ever used. Similarly, de.wiki uses "Lech Posen" for "Lech Poznań" and "Pogoń Stettin" for "Pogoń Szczecin" (but not "Śląsk Breslau" for "Śląsk Wrocław" for some weird reason). --Piotron (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:NOe-Viertel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I checked the Amazon sales page for that ASIN. They don't actually have the book, it offers nothing beyond the publisher info we already have. It gives a publication date of Jan 1, 1964, which is clearly incorrect, so all Amazon have is the year, which we already have. Arguably the Amazon page is less correct than the info in the cite, because it gives an exact publication date which is almost certainly wrong. In point of fact I am finding it very difficult to validate the citation at all. I cannot find a copy in any of the library databases, for example. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm chilled. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bermicourt! After understanding the COI policies better I feel more comfortable asking this favor. I'm petitioning to publish Bottega Veneta from English into German and was wondering if you have time to help me out. I have a paid COI regarding Bottega Veneta, but my main concern here is ensuring that the information available in English is available and up to date in German as well. I have a translated version of the article on Sandbox. Would you mind reviewing it for accuracy as well as its compliance with Wikipedia guidelines? Thanks!--Chefmikesf (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Schloss Pyrmont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waldeck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Spires redirects to spire in accordance with consensus in the discussion at Talk:Spires (disambiguation). Do not unilaterally revert a consensus-based determination like this. bd2412 T 21:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see that, but what a ridiculous decision! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you please provide sources for the additions you made to coral reef. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making some needed changes. However, the additions are still essentially unsourced. Of course, you cannot cite another (unsourced) Wikipedia article as a source. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent --Epipelagic (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

I saw your name on the translation list for translations on Wikipedia. I am wondering if there was any chance you can get the article Alex Gilbert translated into a German version for the German Wikipedia? I understand its a big task. I appreciate your time. Can even just be a stub to begin with. Thank You! --TheDomain (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bermicourt!

Would you have any interest in translating the featured article Elcor, Minnesota for the German Wikipedia? Since many of the immigrants who settled here were from Germany, I think having the article translated in this language is important, especially for any relatives of former residents who may be looking for information about the town. Thanks! DrGregMN (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, but I only translate from German to English as English is my native language and German is not. You might like to put a note here as there are native German speakers in the project who might be able to help. Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Austrian Landesstraße has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested to see a discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt,

Thank you for your message, I have replied on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility#House_of. Gryffindor (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This database has moved from [4] to [5] and from xxx to xxx

Other URLs do not exist any more. Please update [6]. Best wishes Helge — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelgeRieder (talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)