User talk:Charles01/Archive 51

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thankyou for your hard work and consistency in keeping the Intertranswiki project running. One of the most worthwhile projects! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice to be noticed / appreciated! Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

After reading your lengthy paragraph, I'm honestly shocked that you suggest I have been abusing multiple accounts. If you really want to know what accounts I use, it this one and Vauxford2 which used to be use for Flickr-to-Commons upload. I am curious of who had the suspicions have me using them. --Vauxford (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Charles01, I deleted User:Charles01/SandboxVauxford as an attack page. Please don't do that again. If your suspicions are enough for a proper SPI, just do that. If they're not, please just leave it alone. You can't have your own informal SPI report in your user space. El_C 21:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. I had not appreciated that anyone - as in "Vauxford" - might make a habit of rummaging round in the sandboxes of other folks. But I guess we already know that the fellow likes to do things differently. I wonder what else he found. I have, of course, removed the offending reference in the draft response document. Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It wrong. You can't just make such slanderous accusation to someone like that, I wouldn't even do that myself. You making that so-called paragraph about me is a new low. --Vauxford (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks!

I liked your user page and thought the

Wikipedia:Babel

de-5Dieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch auf einem professionellen Niveau.

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

Search user languages

bit was nifty so I used your page to learn the format to add it to my own, so thanks for that too!

I'm almost certain I formatted that wrong, so feel free to change it!  :) I'm still at the skill level where I can only correct typos really.

Deutschmark82 (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Grüß dich as in greetings. Not necessarily in that order. And I'm sorry if I make the wrong choice between Sie und du: You see, this German is not my mother tongue! Parmi les anglophones on ne se tutoye plus!

My user-boxes just come from copying other people's user-boxes. I think that's how it works for most of us. Where it doesn't work (which quite often happens) I simply reverse it and try again three months later. Though quite often if it doesn't work there is an embarassingly low-tech explanation. Like I put in the wrong number of "|"s or "}"s in the right (or wrong) places.

You look as though you think you may be going to have more time to help with Wikipedia in the future. I hope so. There's so much more to be done, as I think you already noticed! Success Charles01 (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #1—July 2019

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon to start editing.

Edit Cards

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

Recent releases

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

1. Section editing
   • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
   • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
2. Loading overlay
   • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

New and active projects

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

• Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
• Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
• Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
• Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use. The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

Looking ahead

• Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
• Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

Learning more

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Charles01/Sandbox ANIVauxfordattack 04 June 2019 Draft reaction Version 04 July 2019 deleted

Please stop recreating these in your userspace and just take it directly to AN/I. Thanks. El_C 19:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've done that. Thank you. I should probably write more, but I guess "thank you" probably covers the most of it. Sorry you've been put through this. The draft report has not changed much since you last saw it. (Still unfinished!) So although I know you just can't wait to read it one more time, I'm not sure you actually need to. Your call. Of course. Regards Charles01 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Vauxford (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ernst Tillich

I assume you have translated the German page. Are you sure that the immoral phrase is precize? It says allegedly, doesn't it? I understand that he was forced to leave rather than found himself guilty.Xx236 (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the German wikpedia page was the starting point, though I seem to have found one or two online source notes. More would be good.

I appear to have done this four years ago, and I have no idea what was on my mind at the time, but German wiki currently says "Wegen seines angeblich „unmoralischen Lebenswandels ....". So yes, I appear simply to have translated the sentiment into my version of English, using the text as it appeared in German wikipedia. If further googling yields up a different version, then provided we can present the thing with a plausible source, there is no reason not to correct it. And of course if further googling yields up conflicting versions - not so unusual - and one has difficulty deciding, there is nothing wrong in summarizing both versions and adding that "sources differ".

Do you have a source for your understanding that "that he was forced to leave rather than found himself guilty"? If so, there is no reason why you should not modify the text. Or send me the link if you prefer that I should do it. Otherwise, I may click around with google myself at some point, but ... um ... not today! Success Charles01 (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Henry Canning for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Henry Canning 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/Henry Canning until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Collaboratio (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Norman Stone

Hello, There's a discussion of the Evans' obit at Talk:Norman Stone#Reputation you may wish to comment in. From my perspective, it would be helpful if you could note any sources which rebut Evans' statement regarding Stone groping students. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Norman Stone should be answering your "When did you stop beating your wife?" question. He's dead. And I am in no position to do so on his behalf I have no very strong facts based opinion on the matter. Such opinions as I can muster on it are unlikely to be a million miles from yours.

I have added some thoughts concerning your edits of the Norman Stone entry to the appropriate talk page as you requested. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Bierut Decrees

Poland has its law, its culture, even if the Germans wanted to destoy it. You have translated a German nationalistic POV into Polish Wikipedia. What happened to the basic explanation "„Bierut-Dekrete“ ist eine von Vertretern der deutschen Vertriebenenverbände geprägte Bezeichnung für die von der polnischen Regierung 1945 und 1946 erlassenen Dekrete, Verordnungen und Gesetze, die Eigentums- und bürgerliche Rechte der aus Ostpreußen, Pommern, Schlesien und Ost-Brandenburg vertriebenen Deutschen sowie der Volksdeutschen aus dem Gebiet Polens in den Grenzen vor dem 1. September 1939 aufgehoben haben. "Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

How you view the Polish government actions and other surrounding events 1945 and 1946 is necessarily defined or at least contextualised by the way you were taught about those events during the first twenty years of your life. Self evidently if you were at school in Warsaw during the 1960s and 1970s you will have learned about a different set of events even from within the same place and maybe quite small time-frame, and you will have been encouraged to look at them through a different set of prisms, from those that would have been included in the curriculum if you were at school in Berlin, Bonn, London, Minsk or New York. Indeed, the differences would have been pretty stark even between how things were taught in Munich and how they were taught up the road in Leipzig. Where governments control the schools, that's a powerful set of influences. And on top of all that schooling comes the inherited knowledge and insight passed through surviving family members. Did you come from a family that thought the Krajowa Rada Narodowa (State National Council) was a heroic or at least necessary homegrown development or from a family that thought it was a well designed tool of Soviet imperialism? I suspect I may know how you might yourself comment in 2019, but in 1979 your 2019 view of those events would presumably have been less mainstream in Warsaw or Krakow. So you should not be surprised if, a generation or two later, those events are differently viewed according to whether your parents (and/or you) grew up in Poland or Germany (or Belarus or England). One of the delights of wikipedia is the opportunity it provides better to see just how folks from different generations/places/tribal traditions have been taught to view history so differently. Not necessarily better or worse or more true or less true. But different. There is no internatationally agreed version of which events were significant, far less of what it all means 75 years later. But if you think the nuances in the German language entry are closer to "objective history" than the nuances in the English language entry, then you should make the changes. Objective history does not exist and never will. But as a great aspiration, I would not presume to denigrate it. Success Charles01 (talk) 07:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Bursfelde Abbey

Hi, any chance you could transwiki this. the current article is poor and should probably be restarted with a full translation from the sourced German article. Looks an interesting place Gerda Arendt, Bermicourt and Ipigott might be interested, no worries if not though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the entry in English language wiki is soooo very terrible, though it's a bit brief. And I agree it would have been a kindness if the many originators had bothered to pepper it with more source notes. And yes, there are lot of things in there on which I catch myself thinking "I wouldn't have done it quite like that myself..." You too, it appears.

The German wiki entry is a bit on the long side for my taste, but maybe if one got into it further one would come across things to leave out or at least to prune with savagery. There are lots of inline citations - more than one might expect with this type of entry on German wikipedia - but they mostly go back to books that may or may not be readily accessible. Which can be a frustration. The German entry benefits from having been compiled by one person, and has a resulting structural coherence that you don't often find on wikipedia. I like that. On the other hand the scholarly person who drafted it appears to have contributed nothing else to wikipedia. A bit of a labour of love? Or a little project by a bored former curator? I guess once one got into it one might find a certain ignorance of the "rules". Then again - irritating national but well supported stereotyping coming up - German people really do find it easier to understand and see the point of "rules" ("Richtlinien?") than Welsh and English people, I find!

Anyway, without making quite a lengthy start it's a little hard to know just what is involved and just how far it may get. But I'll list it for September. Might even finish it! If someone else gets in first I will not weep. It's a pity Eustachiusz has (like you) more or less retired. On tearing it up and starting again, I think that might indeed be what it would amount to, though I would not myself rush to delete stuff until I was absolutely sure that all useful information was being preserved! Success Charles01 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a lot of work, don't worry about it. Looks an interesting place though! I'll be aiming to translate a paragaph from a Spanish, French or Italian wiki article 3 or 4 times a week now, 10 minutes a few trimes a week is better than nothing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, thanks for your work. Please note that "painter", "writer", and other common terms are not normally linked on en.WP. An en dash – should be used as a range separator, not a - hypen. See below the edit box for the button. Tony (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I do tend to link "painter", at least in an intro para, because of the ambiguity of the word. There might be readers who think that a "painter" is / was a fellow repainting the Sydney Harbo(u)r bridge, or the neighbour with a steady hand who gets called in to redo the interior paint work if you live in a house with smokers. Or .... it's a wannabe van Dyck. Depends, of course, on taking time to evaluate the context. (And on being deeply familiar with your and my version of the English language or something similar.) "Writer" is ambiguous in other ways and I tend to prefer "novelist", "dramatist" or "poet". But sometimes - as with the example that I think you have in mind here - none of the three is overwhelmingly the focus at the expense of these (or other) others. I will try and remember to look out for the – and the − and indeed the — underneath the edit box. I'd never noticed the characters there before and they look like time savers. Thank you. Still haven't worked out which of those three dashes I "should" prefer for each situation, but no doubt you'll let me know at some stage where I guess wrong! Best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you can help me

Hello Charles!

I've got something that has been bothering me on German Wikipedia since June; to come straight to the point: There is a very weird translation from English into German in this German article on La chanson de Jacky (at the very end of the section "Der Text"). An editor claims that the phrase cute in a stupid-ass way contains a pun. He says that stupid-ass means "folly" (in German: Eselei, because he thinks that arse = donkey = Esel) and that it sounds like stupid arse, which he thinks literally means "stupid arse" (in German: Dummer Arsch, as in stupid butt(hole)), but as far as my understanding of English goes, I'd rather say that "stupid ass" means something like "idiot", "stupid person", or "muppet"? I've already had a very frustrating discussion where this editor indirectly acknowledged that there is no source for this claim (apparently, this is original research). I think that you know English much better than me, but you also seem to know German pretty well, so you could possibly have a look at it? I just want to know whether or not the claim makes sense (I reckon it is utter rubbish). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that street-slang in German (or French) is not my speciality. (It changes so fast, from generation to generation!) But I can see what the writer is getting at with "cute in a stupid-ass way" even though his/her mother tongue is most likely some variation of American English and my mother tongue is a version of British English. The pronounciation of "arse" and "ass" is very close in American English and I think I can understand what your correspondent means about the pun. In "Oxford" British English "arse" and "ass" are pronounced more differently, but we hear plenty of American English here in England. In Germany (and I think Austria) American movies get dubbed out of American English and into German. My children used to love the way "The Simpsons" sounds dubbed into German when they picked it up on a German channel. But here in England - as, I think, in the Netherlands, where they can all understand both variations of English with a shaming level of ease - we get the Simpsons in American English and we don't give it a thought.

So yes, between "arse" and "ass" it is reasonable to infer a pun. Most Brits would spot it (or cruise through it) without thinking and without suffering mental indigestion along the way. And I understand the intent behind "cute in a stupid-ass way" and I enjoy the impact of the phrase even though I don't think I would have written it like that myself.

I hope I correctly identify the issues here. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't explain properly what I mean. Seen from an "English" perspective, I can see this pun, yes. But let's imagine there isn't any arse/ass spelling differences: If I get this right, stupid-ass can be used as a "prefix" or "adjective" as in "bloddy" or "shite"? And stupid ass just means "idiot", "very stupid person", "muppet"? Or would you think of different meanings? Would it feel unnatural if somebody took "stupid arse" literally, like if he or she actually thought it meant "stupid butt"? Can stupid-ass/stupid ass translate into "folly"? And would changing the spelling from ass to arse make any difference? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Not simple, and I'm not sure that if there was a war going on I would know which side to back! So I would abstain in the vote. This is a French language song by a francophone, and there is an English language version of it. The "official" English rendering of the line in question, as far as I can make out, is "Handsome, handsome, handsome and stupid at the same time". In the French original the line appears to be "beau, beau, beau et con à la fois". The official English translation is tame by comparison: it does not attempt to deliver the anatomical reference to the English reader. The person writing the wiki entry has substituted an English language version which, in my judgement, better captures the French language original. He has used "ass" (which prompts thoughts of "arse") rather than attempting to incorporate the more directly translated word "cunt" because "cunt" is more offensive to more English readers than "con" is to most French language readers. At least, that is my judgement, though these are neither of them words that I would normally incorporate into my daily conversation. (But I have friends who do!)

To answer directly one of your points, no of course stupid ass is NOT a conventional adjectival phrase. But nor is the usage so remarkable as to damage the understandability of the phrase. There are some details where the German language is more flexible than English language. You can often resequence a German sentences five different ways without damaging the meaning or the poetry of it. English is less flexible there. But in lots of other ways the English language is more flexible than German, and its users (who learn very little grammar in the schools: we used to learn a bit of grammar when we studied Latin and German but these days very few kids in England study Latin or German...) are content to break the "rules" without even noticing that they have done it. So ... in terms of using "stupid ass" as an adjective ... for me, I think "stupid ass" works here. And I sympathise with the fellow who finds the "official" English language translation ("Handsome, handsome, handsome and stupid at the same time") lumpy, tame and inelegant when compared to the French original ("beau, beau, beau et con à la fois"). The more I think about it, the more I think I agree with him. Or, of course, with her. Has s/he come up with the best available solution? No comment. Except I don't have a better idea. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your unsuccinct reply, but I suppose it has got way out of the range of replies that I was looking for. I am not very good at being succinct myself; but I will try my best. You have said that you are not sure whether or not there was some kind of "war": Well, there hasn't been an edit-war, but I presume, the editing that has happend can be called a war. I do not inted to drag you into anything, I am honestly just interested in your native-speaker-opinion. To sum up that "war": This editor has created several articles on songs, and he has clearly used original research; for instance, he has used a song's lyrics as an inline citation for an interpretation of the song's meaning. I presume that this stupid-ass → Eselei (donkey egg?) and stupid ass → Dummer Arsch (stupid butthole?) is also original research (there is no reference for this). This was all part of an "article for excellent article vote". I have given a "strong oppose", which made him say that I have only proven my "ignorance". (Does disagreeing with someone for a very good reason make me ignorant??) But anyways, take a look at the reference section in the diesel engine article and decide for yourself whether or not I know what good references ought to look like.

I have never liked Romanic languages, and I only have a very limited understanding of French. But it is certainly good enough to get the meaning of the original French lyrics. However, the translation from Frnech into English is not the point here. The "English translation" is part of an English version of the song that was performed by American singer Mort Shuman. The writer of the Wiki-entry has taken the lyrics of the English Shuman version, and he has then translated this little piece of lyrics into German. He claims that stupid-ass/stupid ass means something like "Eselei/Dummer Arsch", which translates into English as "folly/stupid butthole" (Eselei can also mean donkey egg), but not the claimed stupid-ass/stupid ass, I reckon? I just wonder whether or not this translation from English into German makes any sense. I really hope I'm not stealing your time here! Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand better, now, where some of this is coming from. But I do not very often involve myself in any "article for excellent article vote" even in English language wikipedia. I would certainly not presume to share my own opinions with too much passion when assessment of an entry auf Deutsch is involved. So many of the underlying assumptions that you bring to your wiki contributions and your interpretation of wiki guidelines are based on things your mother told you before you were five, and of which on a conscious level you yourself are not aware. At least .... that's how it is for me. (Yes, my mother had soooo many strong opinions to share!) Sure we need Richtlinien in order to avoid producing complete garbage. But how to interpret and apply these? I like to leave this to others. I really enjoy and respect the variety of approaches you get in wikipedia. If you apply too many "rules" too rigidly you will reduce the variety, making Wikipedia less fun to read, and drive some of your most productive and committed contributors away. For me it is usually enough that the thing is interesting and that it is true. (What is truth? That is a question for another day, God wot.) I understand the "rule" about original research and I can see the point of it very well. And after living many years in Germany (plus even aa couple of months iin Vienna) I appreciate very well that in Germany and Austria there is more respect for the rules precisely because there is more agreement over what the "rules" should be than we have in England or North America. But if I were King of Wikipedia I would, under many circumstances, enforce guidelines with a carefully light touch! Of course, I am drifting ouy of scope. But this is MY talk page so I can! Oder?.... Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This is your talk page, and sure, you can write whatever you want. Sorry, I know that "Article for excellent article vote" is a very silly way of expressing the thing I want to express; it is certainly not like featured articles in the English language Wikipedia: On here, there are currently 46 articles nominated, the nomination process is difficult, it takes a whole lot of time, and articles that end up being "featured articles" don't seem to be a mixed bag. On the German language Wikipedia, there are usually not more than five articles nominated at the same time. And the quantitiy of comments on your article (and therefore the result) depend(s) upon the easiness of the topic (and your wikifriends). Articles like "Diesel engine" or "petrol direct injection" are likely to fail because of a lack of votes/comments, no matter how good their quality actually is (in my case, they almost failed). But on the other hand, articles that are utter rubbish are likely to become "excellent", if the creator has a lot of wikifriends.

I spend a lot of time (most likely too much time) "rating" other editors' articles. And I happen to vote "this article is not an excellent article" at times, because I look at things like: Is the article well written? Is it verifiable? is it broad in its coverage? And so on. What annoys me the most about "excellent article votes" (I shorten this now) is the reaction of other editors (wikifriends); I receive replies such as "Oh yes this article is so good" (and I can tell that the person who wrote that has not even read the article), or even better (or worse?) "Johannes says this article is not good, so I have to act as a counterweight and say it is good indeed" de:Special:Diff/192457881. Mate, what exactly is the merit of your comment?

I get frustrated because I spend time writing good articles myself. I was never taught how to properly use English style elements, and I make very awful mistakes at times (often?). What I write must look it was written by a bungler, or at least someone with a very monotonous writing style. I mess up tenses a lot, I guess. And you have seen my attempt to improve the English diesel engine article (and you have corrected so many things I had got wrong). But what I actually want to say here is that I can assure you, that the bloddy diesel engine article (the English one), as it was "improved" by me, including all its grammar errors, is still much better than many of these German articles that were nominated for "excellent article" (maybe that is a way to say it!). Maybe I am exaggerating, who knows, I cannot judge myself, but that is how I see it. I mean, yes, I am being very strict. But I hope you can agree that purposely writing something that is not at all covered by the cited "source", is disruptive editing. And that grammatically incorrect sentences that look like poorly translated English phrases, don't make an article an "excellent article".

I don't want to start ranting. You have still not given me an answer to my initial question, whether or not stupid-ass/stupid ass can translate into German as Eselei/Dummer Arsch. But anyways. We have somehow lost track of what we were talking (writing) about, I reckon? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I admire (and to a considerable extent extent share) your urge to make wikipedia perfect. That makes wikipedia better. But you must have noticed that the more deeply you get into the detail the more you will discover that other people define "perfect" differently from the way you do. Fascinating indeed, but it means that all of the best entries end up looking somewhat incoherent because of the conflicting insights of contributors.

I can - though it is against many of my deep instincts - attempt an answer to your question "...whether or not stupid-ass/stupid ass can translate into German as Eselei/Dummer Arsch" which is both truthful and (at least for me) succinct. My knowledge of the German language (and culture) - and my insights into the wiki and wider context of the wiki-entry in question - is nowhere near complete enough for me to attempt a useful answer to your entirely sensible question. And - since I live in England where everyone keeps apologising to everyone else whether they mean it or not, but here I really do - sorry! Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I reckon you are the first editor who has told me the he admires my urge to make Wikipedia perfect. Yes, I do have this urge. And yes, I have noticed, that, the more I get into detail, the more I discover that other editors have other definitions of perfect. What I have found to be the most frustrating difference in the definition of perfect is how editors deal with sources, and what kind of merit sources have in their definition of perfect. In my definition of a perfect article, all major points are well sourced, and the sources cited are reliable books, that describe the subject well, were published by a decent publisher, and were written by specialists. What I don't like is poor online links of underwhelming quality. And what I really hate is when editors cite sources without even realising that the source doesn't cover the article's subject at all. It makes my toenails furl.

On the other hand, I have found very entertaining contributions, too. You say that you have spent quite a lot of time in Germany, so I presume you know how hilarious Denglisch can be. Most Germans (and Austrians) believe that they speak English very well, but in reality, they do not. You can substract at least one point from every German's English babel in his or her userbox. I don't know English perfectly well, but I don't know Austrian German perfectly well either. You should check out the recent changes in the German de:Fireman Sam article. Someone who possibly doesn't know what a fire engine is translated the intro song's "his engine is bright and clean". The result is ridiculous (or was, I have corrected it). It made me look up the intro video on YouTube, and to my surprise, they have changed the "When he hears the firebell chime" to "when he hears the fire alarm". Apparently, children nowadays don't know the verb chime anymore?

Well, that is a very nice way of expressing that you cannot answer my – frankly speaking – weird and difficult question. Possibly, there is too much background behind it. I tried substracting that, but that doesn't work in this case, I suppose. Anyways, it was nice hearing (reading) from you Charles. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Vauxford (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)