User talk:Johannes Maximilian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Münster Hauptbahnhof[edit]

The update looks good, although why aren't you using the {{Citation}} template? Anyway, ramblings like this is probably not the best idea (save it as a Word file or post it somewhere else), because it still shows that you are not really getting the point of the scope of the topic ban being intentionally wide was to stop you from "clarifying" (read: wikilawyer) the scope in a very disruptive manner. But anyway, you are a smart and knowledgeable editor, so I have a challenge for you. I am thinking about going for my first GA, but I am not sure what to write about. If you have an uncontroversial subject that you want to write about, we can write it together and submit it for GAR. I think if you can accomplish an GA here uncontroversially, your next topic ban appeal (if that happens, I will probably be even willing to appeal for you) should go far more smoothly. What do you think? Alex Shih (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex, I am just not used to using the tl-template; in the German language Wikipedia, a similar template exists but using it is pretty useless since it just renders the text in the edit box unreadable and not many editors use the references tags correctly, so it has caused a bit of what you could call "annoyance"; I don't like using it, so I haven't even looked for a similar template here in the first place. But if editors here consider not using it undesirable, I guess I will start using it. Regarding the "nothing to see here"-page: It was a stupid idea to create that page in the first place; please go ahead and delete it. I appreciate that you consider me a smart and knowledgabe editor and I am happy to assist you with your first GA. I have created several good and featured articles for the German language Wikipedia (de:Mercedes-Benz OM 138, de:4 VD 14,5/12-1 SRW, de:Unimog 406, de:Unimog 411; also, I have improved the de:Dieselmotor article so it would eventually become a GA, but I haven't had the time to put effort into improving it further and it is stuck in the review (yellow wrench icon)). Please keep in mind that writing a GA can take up to several months. However, I have no idea what to write about in the English language Wikipedia. Maybe I seem like a knowledgable person, but, I guess all I know about is sort of related to engineering subjects. The German featured article Unimog 406 is a translation of an article I had initially written in English. Well, I guess another topic would be a much better option. To be honest, I have no clue what you use to write about since I never looked through your edits. I know a lot about internal combustion engines, Diesel engines in particular, German railway service; I can help with anything regarding German; I know how to acquire several books and I have a library in reach; as you know, I just finished the first draft of an article on air-blast injection, though, I don't really know where to start with a new GA. I have also seen several articles that might need an improvement; for instance, the section "Legacy" of the Rudolf Diesel article seems like 95 % original research. So, do you have any suggestions? --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Rudolf Diesel looks fascinating, I actually had no clue about the origin of the word diesel. I am going to watchlist the page and see if I can work on it in the coming weeks. Alex Shih (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Viele Grusessen. I had a look at your en:Diesel article- and you are very brave to try (English humour- this is a double meaning- brave, and as a euphemism for foolish!). These articles are so important and so neglected and so difficult. I added multple maintenance tags to the history- then started to read the text. It will be improved by adding wlinks (wiki links- or hyperlinks). WP is supposed to be understood by a general educated reader- links back on basic terms are essential. There is a lot of work here. I can help a little- just contact me on my talk page or pop along to the London Meetup ClemRutter (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, User:ClemRutter, for your advice! When I was a child, I was taught many English idioms, and I am a very experienced German language Wikipedia editor ([1]). It's just the little irks and quirks that I encounter on English Wikipedia that make editing a bit difficult. I know that the articels are supposed to be understood by the general educated reader, but that term varies, depending on the country you live in. I was raised in Germany, but I now live in Austria and Hungary, and there are even huge differences between Austria and Germany, and these two countries share a lot of their culture. I was a bit concerned because in both Austria and Hungary, the Newton metre is a unit of both torque and work/energy. However, after reading the English article, it rather seems to me like it is understood a bit differently in English. And this made me ask for advice. This is not the first time I work on an article like the Diesel engine article; just take a look at the de:Dieselmotor article. I was both praised and criticised for overhauling it, but it ended up becoming the German equivalent of GA (Lesenswert). The maintenance tags made me take a closer look at the :en:Diesel engine article, and I am still working on it. I reckon the general problem there may be different ways of describing basically the same thing. In general, I want to add proper sources to the article, but that also forces me to remove sections that are not covered by these sources. Many things I encounter seem to be factually correct, but there is so much information weirdly put together, spread in many sections and blown up unnecessarily. The information on the injection system shouldn't be in the fuel section, for instance. Best regards, and once again, thank you for your friendly message, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Post Scriptum: I had not taken a look at the article before composing my reply; as you might have realised, I am working through the Diesel engine aricle's sections from top to bottom; however, after fixing the 19th Century part of the history section, I noticed many questionable entries, in fact so many of them, that I still have to find a proper timeline in one of my books (and I know there is one, I have seen one before, I just need to find that book). There is no doubt that entries such as "company xyz brought the revolutionary product abc to market<ref>Poor citation</ref> have the nature of an advertisement, which is why they have to go. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user subpage at User:Johannes Maximilian/Nothing to see here may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline because one of the things Wikipedia is not is a web host.. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively, you may add {{Db-u1}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you. Tiderolls 16:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Tide rolls, with all due respect, I've basically just said the same thing immediately above, so I think this templating wasn't really necessary. But other than that, I agree. Alex Shih (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, but I missed the part where you requested the deletion of the page. Tiderolls 16:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello User:Tide rolls, thank you for welcoming to this project I am contributing to since 2009. I noticed that the header you have used on my talk page my not meet Wikipedia's talk page guideline. Please see WP:TALKNEW for how to create proper headings on talk pages. If you believe that your header does not violate our guideline, please just ignore this reply. Alternatively, you may change the header and the talk pager owner, User:Johannes Maximilian, will appreciate it. Thank you. If you have questions regarding article creation, please feel free to leave me a message; if you happen to know German, I will happily assist you with creating German articles as your personal mentor of the mentors' programme. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Air-blast injection[edit]

Hi. While doing new page patrol I saw you'd created an article at Air-blast injection. I am guessing from the all German sources and poking around that you translated it from one or more articles on German Wikipedia. While this is certainly allowed you might not be aware that the license still says you need to attribute where you got the text from. Since it seems to be from more than one article I did not attempt to note this on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49, the article is not a translation from one or more German articles, instead, I have re-written the entire article from scratch using the same sources I had already used for the corresponding article in German (I am also the main author of the German article). Since I am the author of both articles, the style might be similar. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. That explains the differences while being overall similar. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

NPR rights aren't necessary to start reviewing.[edit]

Hi Johannes Maximilian,

I saw your request over at PERM. While I understand why Amanda turned you down for now (a stickler for the rules), I'd very much like to have a chat with you about how the new article review process works over at the German Wikipedia, and also would very much like to welcome you to visit the Reviewers' Discussion board at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers.

Kindly read the Tutorial page (if you haven't already). If you want to get involved in article review processes immediately, you may feel free to install the alternate new page reviewing tool-set WP:TWINKLE. Please activate your CSD Log as well if you plan to nominate articles for speedy deletion (but of course be careful with this, as improper nomination will make it difficult to get the NPR rights in the future). You won't be able to mark pages as reviewed, but you can tag pages, and nominate improper submissions for deletion via WP:PROD, WP:AfD, and WP:CSD using twinkle. (I actually use twinkle for all my deletion nomination anyway, rather than the page curation tools that are only available to new page reviewer rights holders).

Strictly speaking the only thing the NPR userright does is allow one to mark a page off as 'reviewed' (which activates it to be indexed by Google). All other reviewing activities are open to anyone via Twinkle and some NPRs actually use it exclusively. You can find unreviewed articles at Special:NewPagesFeed.

If you keep a list of the articles you have reviewed, I'll be happy to have a second look over them and mark them off as officially 'reviewed' for you. We'd be happy to have the help of an experienced reviewer from one of the sister projects.

Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Re[edit]

Glad to see you back. There is a lot of work to do :-) Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Johannes Maximilian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban rescinded[edit]

Hi. I'm pleased to announce that there was a unanimous support for removing your topic ban on automobiles and units of measurement. As stated at the discussion, please be aware that a repeat of the behaviour that led to the original ban may result in more severe sanctions, such as an indefinite block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Best, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Identification questions[edit]

Mercedes-Benz truck
Hanomag Tractor

Are you able, please, to tell me in more detail what these photographs are of? Forty years ago I would simply have asked my father but these days ... alas. Typ Nr., Bj. (umgefaehr), Motor size/power (cc/PS) ... But I am more interested in what you (easily) CAN tell me than in a list of "?"s

If the question is not easy for you, please do not take too much time for it. But I hoped maybe a difficult question for me might be a very easy question for you. The only certain thing was/is if that I do not ask you, I will never know whether you are able (and willing) to help with this.

Thank you "im Voraus". Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Charles,
Indeed, it is not too difficult. The lorry is most likely a Mercedes-Benz L 311 or L 312, built from 1949-1961, has a 4.58 litre, straight-six, precombustion chamber engine, producing either 90 (before 1956) or 100 PS (1956 and later). This lorry was very common in Germany and known as the 90er-Mercedes. Pre-1955 models were named after their payload, respectively L 4500 (L 312) or L 3250 / L 3500 (L 311). The one you have taken a photo of looks like a "special model": It has a split windscreen and a double cab. As far as I know, these were made by third-party manufacturers, especially fire engines have a double cab and split windscreen.

The tractor is either a Hanomag R455 ATK or R460 ATK (the difference between these two models is a modification of the injection pump speed governor, otherwise they are exactly the same). The R455 ATK was built from 1957-1960, the R460 from 1960-1964. They are both heavy duty tractors with a Voith hydraulic clutch (Turbo clutch), hence the suffix ATK (A = air-filled tyres, TK = Turbokupplung). The engine is a 5.7 litre, straight-four, precombustion chamber engine, producing either 55 or 60 PS. Both 5 and 10-speed gearboxes were available.

I hope this is what you were looking for, best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. I want to add your summaries to the image files - already have for the Hanomag. Please tell me if you object and I will of course remove them: but I think/hope you will not (object)! Best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. Of course I don't object, please go ahead and add my summaries to your photos. I searched the Daimler-Archive, and I found this press release: [2] Maybe this is of interest. Best wishes, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Identification 2[edit]

Porsche diesel tractor
Latil (French timber tractor???)
Pampa (?)
Opel Blitz truck (Ruesselsheim equivalent of Chevrolet/Bedford???)

Thank you again. Your reward(?) is that I have dug more deeply and found four more pictures about which I would welcome more details. Half of me says I should not upload pictures to wikipedia till I know (more or less) what they are of. But the other half of me knows that the best way to learn more is to upload them anyway and then ask for help. It often works with cars. Now also with tractors. As before, I am interested in what you can easily tell me. Please do not interrupt the day job to answer questions you cannot easily answer. But I am confident that for at least two of these you can easily give me details on engine size and power, model type etc. I am confident that you cannot know less about any of them than I do. Many thanks in anticipation of any details you will provide. Success Charles01 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Charles, again, you are welcome. Childhood memories :-) The tractor is an earlier Porsche-Diesel Standard, maybe a Standard Star, it definitely has a longer wheelbase (with an "in between frame"), the front wheels are not original, the indicators are aftermarket parts, as well as the roll bar (and the flashing beacon "panic lights"). If I had to guess, I'd say it's a Standard Star 219, but I am not 100 % sure. The Standard Star 219 has a 1.75 litre, two-cylinder, swirl chamber Diesel engine, producing 30 PS. Unfortunately, I have no idea about the Latil. The grey tractor is a Pampa T01, mostly referred to as the Pampa, a legal Argentinian version of the Lanz Bulldog D1506, built in the 1950s under licence by Industrias Aeronáuticas y Mecánicas del Estado. It has a 10.3 litre Akroyd engine (hot bulb engine, two-stroke), producing either 55 or 60 PS. Increasing power output is really easy because these engines produce a ton of torque; it is very likely that the actual power output is much higher. The gearbox of the Pampa is a 3×2 speed gearbox, and it even has a reverse gear (early Lanz Bulldogs did not have a reverse gear because the two stroke engine does not have a fixed direction of rotation). I am sure that this Pampa was repainted, the original paint colour is orange. The blue lorry is a second generation Opel Blitz, built from 1952–1960. The second generation was rather an optical overhaul of the first generation, technically, the second generation Opel Blitz is pretty much still based on the original 1930 Opel Blitz, however, with an increased payload of 1750 kg (later 2000 kg). It has a 2.5 litre straight-six Otto engine (petrol engine) producing 58 PS. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. As before, I intend to copy or paraphrase your information as notes on the different image files on wiki-commons (unless you object). I did not expect that you would know much about the Latil. No one else does either! But if I don's ask .... Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Please, go ahead. And maybe, the French tractor is a Latil Traulier. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your correction of my edits on Overhead valve engine. That looks better.72.0.146.42 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome! Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Diesel engine[edit]

You've done very good work on this article. I've only had time for a cursory skimming through, but have noted a few things to start.

The lead section is overly detailed, and someone without background knowledge might be confused by some of the technical details. I don't think it's necessary to mention Rudolf Diesel in the lead (it seems out of place in the paragraph), and going into depth about where the fuel is injected, type of air/fuel mixture, diffusion flame, etc. should be left to the section on operating principle. The in-depth technical details disrupt the flow of the prose as well, and partially repeat themselves in a couple places.

The first sentence under "The first diesel engine" doesn't quite make sense to me - it seems like there's missing background information (who is Krupp, what is the Maschinenfabrik Augsburg, how "could" he convince them?). There's other grammatical issues but nothing else major that I've noticed so far.

The "Types" section is difficult, in my opinion. Much of that might be better described in prose. It may be better to explain how each of those classifications pertains to an engine application (passenger car, commercial truck, tractor, ship, etc.) rather than the opposite. Power outputs and bore sizes alone mean little to the average reader, but "Diesels used in passenger cars are typically..." provides greater context.

Is capitalizing "Diesel" when referring to the engine (as opposed to its inventor) a British English variation? I normally don't see it capitalized.

The article appears to be complete and well-referenced, with a logical structure. It's certainly on the cusp of B-class if not already there and shouldn't take too much additional work to make it a Good Article. Consider requesting a WP:Peer review for it to get broader input from editors outside the automotive subject area.

Again, good work. --Sable232 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sable232, thank you for your message. I reckon that either explaining how the Diesel engine works in just a few sentences, or summing up major points of it is the key in this case. I have chosen the former. I agree that it is not very easy to understand, but on the other hand, I believe that it is required to explain it in that detail. There is a lot of confusion regarding the Diesel engine, and simply referring to it as a "compression ignition engine" is not very precise – the Diesel engine is a CI engine, but not all CI engines are Diesel engines. Therefore, explaining what a Diesel engine is in that amount of detail seems reasonable to me – but I understand your concerns and I wish it was possible to avoid that wall of text. Now, the latter, summing up the major points, is an alternative, but I fear that it does not quite express what I'd like to see in the lead section.
The section "The first Diesel engine" was in fact difficult to understand, I have tried to fix it. Krupp is a German steel producer, and the Maschinenfabrik Augsburg was an Augsburg machine factory; they are now known as MAN. I know that my grammar is not perfect; I make a lot of punctuation errors, for instance.
When I started overhauling the article, I figured quickly that the article had a good structure with minor flaws; the "types" and "applications" sections are very similar, thus I considered merging them, but I have not done that yet. Either of the two is a fifth wheel. So I will see what I can do about it.
Capitalising Diesel in Diesel engine seems to be correct. After all, it makes sense, as names always begin with a majuscule. I have seen it capitalised in several (English language) books.
Regarding the books: As you have seen, I have used German language literature. Most of the German books are also available in English, however, there is a notable "translation delay", and thus I have decided to use the German editions – they are more up to date. Thank you and best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Johannes Maximilian, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 20:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at WP:ANI. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. You can't come here and support an indefinite block without giving reasons--especially if it turns out you are just importing a conflict from another wiki. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Drmies I have not imported a conflict from another Wiki. Atomiccocktail did. The claims made by the Austrian IP were obviously well founded. The reported problem was not undisclosed paid editing, but disruptive paid editing – none of Atomiccocktail's articles provide any useful information, as they are solely meant to be advertisements. They are poorly written, and poorly sourced, as well as awful to read. I think that any such editing behaviour is disruptive and the editor obviously doesn't want to contribute normally to Wikipedia. Supporting a block seems like the only reasonable thing to do. Atomiccocktail has made a bunch of false accusations in the past days, and it doesn't surprise me that he continues his attacks. Ignoring the fact that his statement was gibberish rather than English, he tried to beat a dead horse for distracting purposes. I have been back on English Wikipedia since August 2018, and I have not "arrived" just now to support a block. He indirectly accuses me of abusing sockpuppets, (which I believe you bought because you wrote this message on my talk page), but that accusation is unfounded, AC does that because he wants to attack me. I have no idea who that IP-Address is, but it's not me – anyone can go check-user it, I will not show up. I don't even live in Austria. AC also says that I have made "completely baseless allegations (original research and misleading sources)", which is an outright lie. Compare the article Diesel engine (main author: me) against the article Hofmann GmbH (author: Atomiccocktail (or his sockpuppet)). Who do you think is better at judging whether or not something is well-sourced? I hope you understand that I didn't want to bother dealing with Atomiccocktail this time because of the enormous stress this editor has caused recently, which is why I didn't write much more than "support indefinite block". I understand why you've written this message, but anyways, I think it was not necessary. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
When you say something on ANI, you can hardly expect readers and admins to dig into histories on various wikis to see what the reasons may have been for a certain statement. If you can't explain, succinctly, and at that forum, it's probably better not to say anything at all. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

M-J leave me alone[edit]

abusing Special:Thanks? Don't lie: no thanks ever. --ɱ 08:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You have abused Special:Thanks. Stay of my talk page, liar. Leave me alone. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Unimog[edit]

Hi

Once again, this is the English Wikipedia, where we use the most common usage.

Unfortunately, using the German pronunciation does not work, as everyone in the UK pronounces it "Yooneemog"

Please understand you cannot use a German pronunciation when an English one exists and is in very wide usage.

Cheers Chaosdruid (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Chaosdruid, the "most common usage" cannot be determined, because that would be original research. We can use reliable sources on the subject, and in this case, they clearly indicate a pronounciation that is different from "Younimog" – as stated, the word Unimog has its origin in the compound word Universalmotorgerät. I reckon that Anglophone speakers should not have any problems with pronouncing the word Unimog correctly. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
"common usage" is one of the pillars of Wikipedia -
I have started a discussion on the article talk page.
Talk:Unimog#An or a
I can clearly show that English usage of the term is 10 times more "a unimog" than "an unimog" (see article talk page)
In this case, you are applying a German pronunciation to English grammar, and arguing that English people pronounce it the German way.
Unfortunately this is not correct.
(edit) I just noticed that you said "Universalmotorgerat". Are you even aware that English speakers pronounce it as "yooniversal"??
And it is insincere to try and say that I am using OR - I lolled lots at that one :¬)
Chaosdruid (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

IP block exemption[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Johannes Maximilian (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Hereby, I am requesting an IP-Block exemption. Currently, I am able to edit Wikipedia from an IP address that seems to have been blocked globally, only. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 9:56 am, Today (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

IPBE given until 23 November 2019, when the current range block in effect is set to expire (per evidence provided by user via email) N.J.A. | talk 15:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Check your email for me to consider. N.J.A. | talk 14:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. To summarize my email response: this account is not affected by an auto block. IPBE therefore is unneccessary and you can edit without issue currently. The IP you gave is part of a range block and unfortunately an individual IP cannot be exempted. I mentioned discussing with the blocking admin as an option, but noted that it would unlikely result in a change to the range block as it seems to be proper to prevent abuse. I also mentioned considering legitimate use of another account to edit from. I hope this addresses most of the issues. N.J.A. | talk 14:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hey, thanks for reviewing my sandbox, and thanks for your changes! I would ask if you have a special suggestion for me or something else to improve it, i would highly appreciate it! Best regards, Enivak (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"The editor looks for areas where drama and friction occur"[edit]

I don't know if you were aware, but the remark you agreed with here was not based on a careful and sober assessment of Andy's contributions. The editor has been hounding me for the last few months, and only showed up where and when he did to harass me, so saying you "agree" is not helpful. I don't know if I have ever interacted with you before: I'm assuming this was a good-faith misunderstanding on your part, and you were there purely to compliment Andy, but if that is the case it might be a good idea to do so in a different manner than you have. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Stupid-ass inferences[edit]

Johannes, I saw your conversation on Charles01's talkpage but I have been stuck in those webs before so I thought I'd respond here. As used in your example, "stupid-ass" in American English is indeed just an adjective, like "blöder". Here is a very unclear explanation and here's a few more.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That helped me a lot. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Ping me here if I can help over in the German wikispace. My German is limited but I did win a Schiedsgericht over there once...  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I very much appreciate that! Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Unimog identification questions[edit]

Unimog at Schaffen-Diest 2018 - Copy.jpg
Unimog formerly in Belgian military service.jpg

Your talk page reminds me of a couple of questions that have been tickling away at the back of my mind...

Might I ask for a more comprehensive definition for these two than I have yet achieved, please? (We don't get too many Unimogs here in England.) Many thanks im Voraus. And best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Charles! The green one is very likely a 1974 Unimog 406 (type 406.121, model U 84) (it doesn't have the upgraded step), however, due to many aftermarket modifications, I cannot tell for sure without inspecting that vehicle in person, but I am pretty sure. What I can say for sure that it is a post 1970 406 (rear windows) and a pre 1979 406 (grille). The engine used in the 406 is a 5.7 litre OM 353 diesel engine (62 kW). The darker, green-greyish one is a an Unimog 404 (type 404.114, model U 82), but I cannot say when it was made, since the annual changes were very minimal with the 404 series, and Daimler-Benz made more than 50,000 units of the type 404.114. It should have a 2.2 litre M 180 engine (60 kW). But again, I cannot tell for sure, and there were some exceptions. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)