User talk:Charles01/Archive 14

Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom

Do you have a source for your assertion that the "A" suffix wasn't used before September 1963? This document says the first A-suffix number issued was AHX 1A in Middlesex in February 1963. February is also mentioned here and here. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

I'm afraid the only source is my memory. It's something that would have attracted considerable press comment in the UK at the time, and if anyone has access to one of those sites that lets you access old newspapers, I imagine there would be something there. I did have a free trial membership to (I think) a Canadian Thompson newspapers website, but it lapsed. I took a look at those sources you mentioned (apart from the first one which only downloaded as far as the first half of page 1) but it's not clear to me where their information is from. They may be right and I may be wrong, but I don't think so. Either way, one needs to try and avoid circular sourcing that simply corroborates itself, which is why something identifyably contemporary would be .. um ... helpful. I DO have a lot of old UK motor magazines in the loft but nothing from much before 1970 which is a bit late for this. I suppose the information could also be authoratitively sourced from old UK government archives, but we'll all be most likely dead of old age before you can access those on line. Hmmmm. And regards Charles01 (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the websites I cited perhaps aren't the most authoritative of sources, but I think, by the rules of Wikipedia, they might still be preferable to original research. I'll see if I can dig up more contemporary sources. Letdorf (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

Parker's Car Price Guide, September 1977 issue: inside the back cover is a list of suffix letters, A is listed as "Feb 1963 to 31st Dec 1963". I don't have any earlier issues to hand, but I don't really have much reason to doubt this source. Letdorf (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

Well, I agree a printed source dated 1977 is likely more plausible than a twenty-first century web based source of uncertain provenance. Though of course if you enter February 1963 based on this source people can come back and quote the web based sources giving January 1963 (even tho I suspect those sources are all (1) making a reaonable but wrong assumption and / or (2) based on each other. Frankly, until someone turns up a more solid source - preferably one printed 1963 - I think neither of us is in a position to be desperately dogmatic about this. Incidentally I tried googling it and came up with lots of "sources" for January 1963 (which presumably you have also done) and one for July 1963. I didn't find a February 1963 or a September 1963 but I got bored and stopped after checking about ten. (There seem to be thousands.) None of which takes us all the way to the good place - ie something that is both (1) sourced according to Google conventions and (2) true. But having read your note I figured I ought to say (write) something.

When I am writing a para of wiki text on (f'rinstance) a car, I am quite capable of writing along the lines that "a facelifted version was launched on the home market in October 1965 or March 1966. Sources differ." But there's not really room for the "sources differ" bit in a table. And besides, where sources differ there's usually an explanation. Sometimes an interesting and relevant one. In the case of a British or Italian car launched in the 1960s it's sometimes along the lines that they showed three prototypes to the press and shipped twenty preproduction cars to dealers before stopping the lines for six months because everyone was on strike (UK), the owner of the company (or his bank) had run put of cash (or patience) (Italian exotica). Or they'd belatedly worked out a way to make the suspension work better but needed six months to incorporate it into the production process and agree and cost a revised spcification with their shock absorber / strut suppliers. And they probably blamed the workers for being on strike anyhow because it was always less embarrassing and often true.

All of which is a digression you didn't need. Happy Easter. Charles01 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe the first source I cited above (this PDF file seems to disable scrollbars and the toolbar in the Adobe Reader browser plugin - the Page Up/Down keys are needed to scroll through it), which states that the A suffix was officially introduced on 1st January 1963, but the first actual registration wasn't issued until February 1963. This would explain the preponderance of web sources giving January 1963 as the date, which is technically true. I'm not sure what you mean by "sourced according to Google conventions" - it's not a requirement that WP sources have to be on the Web (though it does make verification a lot easier). I agree with your point about trying to determine car production dates - I've had similar problems myself. And US-style "model years" don't help matters either! Letdorf (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

I meant "sourced according to wiki conventions". The "G" word just seems to have been what came off my fingers. You can, I trust, see why I had it in mind at the time! On the introduction date of the "_ _ _ - _ _ _ - A" plate I'll leave you to do what works best for you unless I ever find a persuasive source that refutes it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My user page

Hello, Charles, thanks for correcting the typo on my user page, and for the nice comment you left on the edit summary. Existentialism is a philosophical movement that radically changes the way one understands his life and the world. It is related to skepticism and relativism. I like reading about it much. See you around, Anna Lincoln 19:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. My suddenly rediscovered interest in existentialism arose yesterday when my son asked if we had anything by Sartre in the house. We have rather a depressing novel from the trilogy he wrote about the build-up to the second world war. I'm not sure he (my son) will read it cover to cover, but it's good that he was interested enough to ask. The kids today don't spend so much time with books now there is so much electronic competition for their leisure time. Maybe I should read the wiki entry on M Satre's philosphy. That will no doubt cure me of the thought I had that I was beginning to understand it! Charles01 (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A short novel by Sartre that can be easily read by anyone with no special philosophial background is Nausea. He may also want to read The Stranger by Albert Camus, another existentialist philosopher. These works emphasize human freedom and the absurdity of the world. Regards, Anna Lincoln 20:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to log out... Anna Lincoln 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That looks like a couple of eternal themes. Or?

He does have a birthday soon, and while the main birthday present was decided long ago.... Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking Canadian

Hi, Canadians speak English, thanks for insulting us. --Þadius (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No insult intended. But I'm sorry that you felt insulted.

As for how you label languages, I suppose my English ancestors would be delighted that so many people - and not just in England - are happy and hono(u)red to use the English language as a mother tongue. My Scots ancestors might not be so happy about it. And there are parts of Canada where some people, especially French speakers from more senior generations (which maybe includes mine), still seem to see the whole language thing as a kind of tribal humiliation. I happen to think English is a fantastic language, and you can't be surprised at the extent to which versions used in different bits of the world differ.

I think my own "language issue" with the page on which you landed, and which triggered my comment, was that someone had used a word that outside of (the anglophone bits of) Canada is unlikely to be understood correctly. So it needed clarification, because presumably communicating knowledge is more important, in the wiki context, than imposing different versions of anglo-linguistic imperialism according to where we grew up. It's not just for folks in Canada that contributors contribute entries on Canada. You also have to try and communicate (where they are interested) with English speakers in South Carolina, Adelaide, Singapore, Chennai/Madras and .. um ... England. Regards Charles01 (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)